It has come to my attention that a few Skopje surrogates in Greece headed by Alexandra Ioannidou wrote an article of some type back in February 2018 insisting that the FYROM Slav speech is a language, not a dialect. The codification of an oral or written speech is a philological issue that follows a political decision. Linguistics deals with the vernacular of speakers of a specific region, a town, or even a neighborhood.

What is the difference?

Usually, I would not care about this, but when I read lame arguments from people who are educated in cognate fields of linguistics as philology and even applied linguistics in order to promote their political pro-Skopje affinities under the cloak of science I perceive it as a personal attack on my intelligence. A true linguist knows that in a strict linguistic sense of the word there is NO difference between a language and a dialect. In order to support their views, Alexandra Ioannidou has brought up scientific issues of pronunciation in hopes that they raise a winning argument to support their political views. The author’s angle was philological at best with a fig leaf of linguistics under the burqa of politics.

The text below is for the benefit of those who might have gotten confused by the politically motivated nonsense of the people in question. I am giving an example of an issue in a more familiar setting to the Greeks.

The ancient Athenian grammarian Aristeas codified the Greek language, and to my knowledge, the whole process lasted about 20 years (285 -265 BC). At that time, over the Greek-speaking world, one would hear Ionic, Doric, and Aeolic as the primary forms of speech, but also the Doric Koine, Northwestern Doric, Attic Koine, and their linguistic offshoots.i

The Macedonian Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II sponsored the language codification project for strategic cultural and political reasons. Geostrategically speaking, a river and sea thoroughfare offer means of communication with other cultures develop trade, grow the economy, foster language promotion that in turn stimulate the foundations of cultural expansion advances people’s education. In essence, the sky is the limit of what individuals and societies can do.

Over the years, the product of Aristeas’ assignment developed to the point that the Greek language became the beacon of enlightenment to the world. One of the results of such colonization gave rise to the Latin alphabet as the result of such use of the language and culture of the colonists from Euboean town of Cumae (Κύμη), the spread of Judaism and Christianity, the emergence of the Cyrillic Alphabet.

Then darkness came to the land, the Ottoman Turk oppressed education in the local speech. It lasted until 1830. Governor Capodistrias ordered the establishment as Greece’s literary language the Koine dialect, which was already codified. In 1976, the vernacular was declared the official language of Greece, having incorporated features of Katharevousa and giving birth to Standard Modern Greek, which is used today for all official purposes and in education. That was also a political decision.

Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I chose to copy the opinion of the famous author and true linguist, Mario Pei.

Politically speaking, one might answer that a language is what is officially accepted as the national form of speech, a dialect what does not have such acceptance. This definition would eliminate as languages such tongues as Welsh and Breton, while Lithuanian and Lettish, not having been languages under the Tsars, would have become languages with the creation of the Lithuanian and Lettish Republics at the close of die First World War, and then would again have ceased to be languages as soon as these nations were absorbed by the Soviet Union.

From the literary standpoint, one might say that a language is a form of speech that has given rise to a literature, a dialect one that has not; this would establish Sicilian and Neapolitan, Ozarkian and Brooklynese as languages, while it would eliminate Sardinian and most of the languages of the African and Native Americans.

A third reply is that there is no intrinsic difference between a language and a dialect, the former being a dialect which, for some special reason, such as being the speech-form of the locality which is the seat of the government, has acquired preeminence over the other dialects of the country.

Actually, there is no clear-cut reply to the question. Even linguists shrink from answering it, and rightly. When a language is examined under the microscope, it is found to be infinitely diversified. There is one form of cleavage and stratification along social and cultural lines, which leads to the infinite gradations of standard tongue, vernacular, slang, cant and jargon. There is also a local, geographical division which extends not merely to regions and sections of a country, but also to towns and quarters of towns. Some linguists go so far as to assert that each speaker may be said to have a dialect of his own, as evidenced by the fact that his friends can identify him by his speech (Pei 1949, 46).

Whether a speech is a dialect or a language is always a matter of the criterion one uses. Alexandra Ioannidou chose the political criterion concluding that “Macedonian” is a language, not a dialect.

My background

Before I proceed, let me explain my linguistic background. I was born in an extended family of four languages with Greek being the fifth language as lingua franca. I learned the speech of the Bitola – Prilep, which to me is one of the South Eastern Linguistic Bulgarian group of dialects, from my maternal family from the day I was born. It was my first language, which I heard from my dearest mother. The first alphabet I learned was the Serbian based Cyrillic alphabet of Skopje even before the Greek kindergarten. As far as my mom was concerned, she spoke Srpski or Serbian as she used to call her speech. Why Serbian?

To begin with, at the time of my mother’s birth the region of the FYROM was called South Serbia. Blazhe Koneski standardized the language under the auspices of the Marxist government of Yugoslavia. It was a philological product for political expediency.

The Past

Misirkov suggested that the new country, Macedonia, as visualized by the Socialist fighters of the VMRO and later resolved by communists should recognize the central dialect as its literary language. He did not suggest that the government assign the task to a pro-Serbian linguist who would take it away from the original tongue. I have no idea what happened to the – Шо праиш? Aрнo! (Sho prajish? - Arno!” (How are you? Well!) of the Prilep-Bitola dialect. It has been replaced by the Serbian – “Kako si? – Dobro”. This is only one small example of how Koneski had fixed the new “language.”

However, the language started as part of the Western Bulgarian group of dialects, and through the intervention of politicians, it was navigated towards Serbian away from the original speech. I would never forget my mother telling her first cousin in the 1960s, “What have you done to our language? In a few years, we will not be able to communicate any longer”.

The explanation of whether the language that my mother spoke was called Serbian or Macedonian exists in the annals of the Illyrian Movement. Dragutin Rakovac, author and publicist with degrees in law and philosophy, wrote a fascinating observation in his short essay entitled Mali katekizam za velike ljude (Small Catechism for Grown Men), in which he remarked, and I am translating,

The names of peoples and languages may not and cannot be invented. The Croat, Serb, and Slovene names would, all else being equal, have the greatest right to the common appellation for our language and literature. These three names are hereditary in southwestern Slavia, as the names of the three main branches of the southwestern Slavic people. But we know that a brother does not tolerate a brother's supremacy and experience teaches us that a Croat will never accept a Serb or Slovene name; a Serb will never accept a Croat or Slovene name, and neither will a Slovene accept a Croat or Serb name.(Dragutin Rakovac, Mali katekizam za velike ljude, Zagreb: Illyrian National Press of Dr. Ljudevit Gaj, 1842, p. 16) -- Translation is mine.

Members of the Illyrian Movement knew who the South Slavic tribes were. How is it possible that they missed the Macedonians and their distinct language? That movement gave rise to Yugoslavism and later to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. As it is apparent, ethnicities as Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Macedonian were missing. It was before Communism started implementing The National Question as the tool serving the national interests of Russia under a different administration.

In the sixth paragraph of the Resolution of the Comintern dated 11 February 1934 is stated, “The chauvinists of Greater Serbia, referring to the presence of Serbian impurities in the language of the local Macedonian population, declare this population as one of the tribes of the single Yugoslav nation-state and forcibly serve it.” The tribes the resolution had mentioned were Serbian, Montenegrins, and “Macedonians.” They all spoke the Štokavian dialect during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Alexandra Ioannidou also mentioned something about phonemes and alphabets. There is a difference between the standardized alphabet, which in theory represents the phonemes of a language, and the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). The standardized alphabet of any language is part of philology, although letters, in theory, represent phonemes. The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), is part of linguistics of that language, but it is not part of philology. Such an alphabet concerns the phonemes of a speech in any conceivable way regardless of how they are presented in the standardized alphabet. For instance, if we take the Greek language, we see that the alphabet does not include letters reflecting the sounds of λ, ν, μ, π, in λαλιά (lj), νιάτα (ŋ), μιά (ɱ ), ποιός (πχ). We can have the r flat or roll, and yet we use only one letter for both. Something similar one can say about the letter L that is known as dark L at the end of a word or light L at the beginning of a word. What can we say about the Pelasgian remnants found in the Greek language as σσ, ρρ? They exist, but their sounds are questionable.

I would expect some candor over the political poppycock from someone who pretends to be a philologist, even in Russian. Such a philologist remind me of a Croat teacher in DLI who insisted that Croatian and Serbian are different languages; then a Bosnian Muslim came into the discussion noticing that Bosnian was a completely different language from the other two. A young Muslim woman from Ženice, Bosnia told me, “Now that we have a country; we have our own language, Bosnian.” Furthermore, their governments of the former Yugoslavia had certified interpreters for communication among themselves. It is ridiculous.

Thus according to the specifications of Alexandra Ioannidou, a country has to have its own language. As late as 1920, an attempt was made to coin the term Unitedstatish to describe the language of the American Union (Pei 1949, 298). This means that if the U.S. Congress had succeeded in passing the law, the official language of the United States would not have been English, but Unitedstatish language!!! Under the same logic, Americans, Canadians, Australians, Irish, and all other people whose governments have imposed on them English do not have their own language. We have to push for Austrian and Swiss languages. I do not even want to touch the issue of Spanish, French, Portuguese, and a few others. My goodness, billions of people are mute! Are we serious? It is the ultimate extreme of nationalistic inferiority.

Some “linguistic” examples from my life

In the Slavic languages ​​of the same group, in particular, the distinction between languages ​​is more difficult than anyone can imagine. People can easily communicate after they dismount from their nationalistic high horse.

Nevenka was a Serbian refugee who lived at the UN housing at the Votsi area of Thessaloniki. She and my grandmother had befriended each other after an accidental encounter. All the years of friendship, Nevenka used her Serbian jekavski dialect while my grandmother spoke her native Bitola-Prilep-Veles dialect.

In my life, I have attended meetings of Serbs discussing matters with Bulgarians by using the kje (ќ) speech as they had mentioned, i.e., the Bitola-Prilep-Veles dialect. In my presence Croats from Zadar, Dalmatia spoke in ikavski with Serbs from Vojvodina in ekavski of the Što dialect. I have attended conferences and meetings of the people of Yugoslavia back in the 1970s and 1980s. Every single speaker spoke in his or her dialect. They just used the vocabulary of their preference without any problem of understanding each other and that included the Slavonic months that Croats use.

When I attended the U.S. Army certification course of translator/interpreter, one of our teachers was a Croat from Bosnia, one from Montenegro and one from Serbia.

In 1968, near the White Tower of Thessaloniki, where the touring coaches are parked, I spoke Serbian to a group of Slovak tourists who came to see the birthplace of the great brothers Cyril and Methodius. We did not have a communication problem.

In the late 1970s and before I joined the U.S. Army, two women, and I were talking as going to work at Sears Tower in Chicago. One of the women spoke Russian, the other one Polish, and I spoke Serbian. We had no problem communicating.

In 1973 waiting for the train for Zagreb at a Train Station platform in Trieste, Italy, I was speaking Croatian to someone thinking that he was a Croat. As we saw the train coming, the man asked, “Where did not you learn such excellent Bulgarian?” I was stunned. He explained to me that he was a Bulgarian diplomat. He thought I spoke Bulgarian as an educated Bulgarian would. We had spoken for approximately 20 minutes, and yet we never realized that we spoke different languages, both Slavic of the South Slavic group.

In 1984, as a valedictorian student of my Czech Class at the Defense Language Institute, Monterrey, California, I gave my speech in Slovak, not in Czech. To this day, I am the only one who has done so. Nobody had any problem understanding it. I spoke about the city of my birth Thessaloniki and the contributions of its two children (Sts. Cyril and Methodius) to the Slavic enlightenment. Its title was Solún, nevesta Termy (Thessaloniki, the bride of Therme).

In 1993 while in Sofia, I used my maternal dialect of Bitola – Prilep communicating with my Bulgarian collocutors as if we spoke the same language, we actually did speak the same language! I had attended my Sunday liturgy in Bulgarian; no sweat.

I know a woman who works as a cashier in a grocery store nearby; she is from Petrich, Bulgaria. One day I spoke to her in the central Skopjan dialect, per Misirkov. She said to me that my Bulgarian reminded her of her grandmother. To me, it was a compliment.

Politics is Perception

Nevertheless, the issue that Alexandra Ioannidou has raised is not linguistic; it is philological, which means very political. They have made evident that their concern was strictly political as they allied with gods and demons defending not their own country’s national interests and national security, but the adversary’s national interests acting as Skopje’s fifth phalanx and proxies.

Politics is perception. The nationalistic overtones as Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje surrogates put it, had to do with slogans like Η Μακεδονία είναι μία και είναι ελληνική. Such slogans perhaps facilitated more Skopje’s positions internationally than strengthening Greece’s rights. Although I fully understand the meaning of “Macedonia is one, and it is Greek,” because I have read Strabo (Ἐστι µέν οὖν Ἑλλάς καί ἡ Μακεδονία), billions of people around the world might have thought that the Greeks wanted to annex Skopje. After all, the republic of Skopje is known to be called “Macedonia” all over the world for 30 years now.

The idea was not to hide into our shell ignoring the world, nor was it a psychological mirror image of the world, i.e., since we see it our way, everyone else sees it likewise. The whole idea was to win both the hearts and minds of the world. Slogans that emanate nationalistic and expansionistic overtones as historically correct, as they were, hindered our objective. A very slight change in the wording would make the essential vital difference. Perhaps, the organizers should consult people who understand advertising and how the market works to prepare slogans that sway people to their destined target.

Nevertheless, I would not be hastened to blame the demonstrators whose region and indeed the country are under attack for the failure of the organizers (leadership and sponsors) of such demonstrations. To me, it is a patriotic sentiment expressed in a misguided mode. In the article by Alexandra Ioannidou, I had not read anything that condemned the truly irredentist slogans, maps, photographs by the WMC, UMD, and other Skopjan Organizations. I am not even touching the issue of Skopje’s official violations of articles 2, 3, 4, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 11.1 of the Interim Accord or pre-Agreement if you wish, which include the antiquization project regardless of the intended purpose, always according to Skopje.

As I started writing this paper, Skopje’s Prime Minister has already violated Article 4.3 of the Prespes Agreement (The ink is not dry yet.), article 6.2 of the Interim Agreement, and the Article 2.4 of the UN Charter.

I do agree with Alexandra Ioannidou that the acronym The FYROM was stupid, but not for the reasons they think. It is downright stupid knowing how International Law works.

Greek diplomacy should have known better. The termination of the acronym, i.e., Macedonia gave the right to Skopje to maintain it in the final name. It was also the name responsible for the whole world to call Skopje, Macedonia. It was not an accident that Mr. Vasilakis a fine diplomat and negotiator back in the 1990s had started pushing for the name Republic of Macedonia (Skopje) under the precedent principle of Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa). The argument was simple, “since Greece had accepted the word Macedonia in the Interim Agreement, it shall accept it in the final name. International Law is based on the principle of stare decisis; once a country accepts something, it establishes a new reality even if in the future the new reality proves impractical or detrimental to the country at hand leading to various troubles or being impossible for it to carry on without further complications. We all see the complications now.

The other issue is that people tend to simplify official names of countries that look complex, names such as United States of Brazil, United States of Mexico, and United States of America to respectively Brazil, Mexico, and America. They did the same with Skopje’s stupid acronym.

Many years ago, I read an article of Nova Makedonija in which a journalist was asking, “Who has ever heard a country to adopt the name of its Capital?” The journalist, had never heard countries such as Mexico and Panama that took their name from their Capital. Both cities, Mexico and Panama, preexisted the countries and their names.

Greek blogs very irresponsibly did everything possible to fall for any sensationalist trash prepared by the propaganda experts of Skopje and its diaspora that read online pushing people to react taking away the attention of the Greek population from the real issues of national interests to one shoddy information or another. The sensationalist trash of the Greek blogs, in reality, was a manufactured compost.

Finally, Greek Mass Media recklessly filtered the thoughts, mouths, and hands of those few Greek Vouleftes who wanted to mention something sensible away from the rubbish of their party line. As if they were scandalmonger tabloids, the Mass Media seeking political dirt in order to improve their ratings and revenue started calling such Vouleftes undignified and pejorative names as “dolphins” who wanted to take over the leadership of a Party even when the so-called leadership stank. Obviously, for these media, Article 60.1 of the Greek Constitution is subject to lavatory use.

Misirkov and Today’s Reality

Misirkov, the so-called Father of Macedonism, wrote a book On Macedonian Matters, and some articles and essays. One of his essays and two articles in addition to the book are pertinent to this article.

One of these essays On the Significance of The Moravian or Resavian Dialect for Contemporary and Historical Ethnography in the Balkan Peninsula offers scientific argument that Alexandra Ioannidou in Greece forgot to mention. It is about the Resavian dialect the phonemes of which coincide with the central dialect of the FYROM.

Although the book On Macedonian Matters originally was published in the late autumn of 1903, there are certain words and expressions that suggest some redactions, at least three times. One emerged after 1914. The second redaction occurred after May 1919, i.e., after the formation of the Third or Communist International Association aka Comintern and the third modification ensued after July 1924, i.e., publication of the III Communist International, Fifth Congress Resolution on National Question in Central Europe and Balkans - The Balkans: Macedonian and Thracian Questions.

The above book and the two articles published in Mir in 1925 expressed one and one thing only. The separation of Macedonia from Bulgaria that Misirkov advocated had nothing to do with the existence of the Macedonian people as I am explaining below. Misirkov advocated the separation of Macedonia from Bulgaria in order to stop Bulgarian ideological interference in Macedonia that Misirkov did not like. I am quoting him,

To avoid copying them blindly and transplanting socialism into Macedonia instead of nationalism, as the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization has done. By divorcing our interests from those of Bulgaria we will be saved from aping the merciless acts of the Bulgarians and from having to accept their assurances that Bulgaria is our benefactor and Russia our greatest enemy; thus we will also develop a critical attitude towards our own actions and those of others (Misirkov 1970, 111-2).

Misirkov used the phrase “Macedonian people” in the sense of a Slavic ethnicity, but he recognized the fact that in Macedonia other ethnicities existed, e.g., using the same demonym. Any time he wanted to clarify who were the Macedonians he was writing about, differentiated his “Macedonian” compatriots and of course himself as “Macedonian Slavs” (27 times).

As the Comintern was concerned, Hristo Andonov-Poljanski, a historian and former rector of the University of Skopje, gave the following explanation regarding the definition of the Macedonian people, “In Comintern papers, the expression Macedonian people cover all populations that inhabited the region of Macedonia. That is, all the inhabitants of Macedonia, irrespective of ethnic origin, constituted the Macedonian people”(Hristo Andonov-Poljanski. 1981, v. 2). Such a definition is also evident in Misirkov’s book in which he wanted to see Macedonia as a country with the Macedonian Slavs as its dominant ethnicity and the central Macedonian dialect its literary language for all Macedonia.

He also explained that on March 12, 1925 (Macedonian Nationalism) the Macedonian Slav intelligentsia was scientific in thought, Macedonian in conscience. The first term means that the Macedonian Slav intelligentsia was revolutionary socialist or communist if you wish and the second one means that the revolutionary socialist or communists were compelled to follow the edict of the Comintern issued about nine months earlier.

However, since Alexandra Ioannidou brought up certain phonemes to prove her philological points using some sketchy phonemes, here what Misirkov read into one of the meetings of the St. Petersburg Ethnographic Society and afterward printed in the journal Живая старина (Live Antiquity) of the SocietyVII Edition; III and IV Sections; V, 482-485 and also in the Bulgarian Review, V, volume I, September 1898, 121-127.

Bearing in mind the role that language plays in the classification of different tribes and larger units, as nations, I draw attention to research that I have done in the South Slavic transitional dialect between the Bulgarian and Serbian languages and currently very important because of the historical ethnography of the Balkan Peninsula. I mean the Moravian or (according to the Karadzić) Resavian dialect, to which more than two-thirds of all the Slavic population in Serbia speak.

The Moravian dialect covers the entire southern, eastern, and central Serbia to the River Kolubara and the tributaries to the left of the River Ibar. [The Moravian dialect] is very near to both Shopski and Skopjan speech indicating the ethnicity of the modern Moravian peasants. Also, taking into account the prevalence of the relationship of the spoken word, the latter understand the speech of those mentioned within the borders of the medieval Serbian kingdom. It seemingly gives us knowledge of the ethnicity of the Slavic tribes, which composed of the kingdom.

Here is what Misirkov articulated:

Instead of the Old Slavonic also known as the Old Bulgarian nasal sound ь as in ръкa, мъка, път the nasal sound converts to y ( = u) as in рука (ruka = hand), мука (muka = torture), пут (put = road).

Old Slavonic dark sounds ъ and ь are replaced by the sound 'a,' which, when it is not emphasized is pronounced on more or less between а and ъ, e. g.: пожаревац and пожаревъц.

Instead of the Old Slavonic шт (sht) and жд (zhd) the sounds of ћ (ć), i.e. between ts and ch; it is a voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate, and ђ (đ pronounce dz - дz), which people older than 30 years of age pronounce it softer, almost palatalized as к and г in кь, гь or к' and г') (Translation is mine).

Based on the above features of the Moravian dialect, its proximity to Bulgarian is higher than to the Serbo-Croatian language. The use [of the Serbian language] at the western limits of the medieval Serbian kingdom, the absence of accurate data on the existence of Serbs in the territory of [modern day] Serbia specifically those speaking the Moravian dialect until the founding of the kingdom of Nemanjić, and finally, because there is indirect evidence pointing at the absence of Serbian tribes in the area of Morava, I came to the following conclusion.

1. That the modern Serbian Slavs from Moravian speech are closer to Bulgarian Slavs than to Serbo-Croats,

2. That the ancestors of the Moravian Slavs were closer to those Slavs, which afterward formed the Bulgarian nation;

3. The medieval Slavic kingdom founded by Nemanja enlarged but his successors called Serbians was formed by tribes closer to those Slavs, which was initiated Bulgarian kingdom than to Serbo-Croatian tribes

4. That in the Serbian kingdom only the Nemanja dynasty was Serbian.

Misirkov, Importance of Resavian or Moravian dialect of Contemporary and historical ethnography of the Balkan Peninsula, Saint Petersburg, 1897.

The readers can draw their own conclusions. Misirkov continued,

“these principles should guide us in creating our literary language and orthography. These principles entail:

1) The adoption of the Prilep-Bitola dialect, as the central dialect in Macedonia for the purpose of creating a literary language equally different from Serbian and Bulgarian.2) The adoption of a phonetic orthography with letters as used in this back and with minor concessions to etymology.3) The collection of lexical material from all the regions of Macedonia”.(Misirkov 1970, 202).

Regarding the speech Misirkov stated,

Each national language has its history and its contemporary variants, dialects, sub-dialects, etc., and our language is no exceptions. The history of our language shows that the present variants are derived from older ones, which is proof that they originate from a common Macedonian language, and that Macedonian comes from the South-Slav group, and so on. On this basis, one may determine which variant or dialect in any particular period was most used in the written language.

The history of Macedonian, like the history of other languages, shows that any dialect, regional variant or accent may be used in literature. The privilege any dialect or regional, accent may enjoy through being made the vehicle of literature as historians of the language might say is not granted on the basis of any aesthetic superiority it may have, but for purely practical considerations, i.e., as a result of historical and cultural circumstances (Misirkov 1970, 194)

Thus when Misirkov mentioned that the Macedonian Slavs could not understand the Bulgarian literary language what he meant was that they could not understand the Eastern dialect of the Bulgarian language. The Eastern dialect employs free intonation and in general sounds like Russian while to long e of the Western dialect becomes ya in the Eastern dialect.

That is (W) mléko = (E) mlyáko = milk. Under such circumstances, any illiterate, uneducated, or untrained Macedonian Slav was bound not to understand the new literary language.

I could easily contribute some truly linguistic information regarding the pronunciation of the letter ѫсъ aka юсъ большой (big yus) in Russian after its abolition from modern Cyrillic. Although it is not written anymore, it does affect the pronunciation of words that used to include it. This is only the pronunciation in areas mainly of Bulgaria and the FYROM, but also the region of Pirot. The original spelling was зѫбъ (tooth) and мѫжъ (man) although the pronunciation of the same letter differed. The actual pronunciation of the words зѫбъ (tooth) and мѫжъ (man) in the modern era is зъб, мъж, заб, маж, зуб, муж, зôб, мôж, зоб, мож, зêб, мêж, зъмб, мънж, замб, манж, зôмб, мôнж in different regions of Bulgaria, the FYROM, and Serbia transcending political boundaries.

One cannot judge the linguistic family of a speech and its relationship to other vernaculars by its vocabulary or even by the philological codification, but by its grammar and syntax. Notwithstanding, the literary language of the FYROM grammatically is identical as all Western Bulgarian dialects whereas its vocabulary has been “improved” by insertion of Serbian, Greek, and even Polish words in order to make it a language separate from both Bulgarian and Serbian. If such a move is not political, I have no idea what is.

Alexandra Ioannidou and Skopje’s surrogates in Greece got a chance to mock the Greek public since very few Greeks know the philology and linguistics of the Skopjan Bitola-Prilep-Veles dialect. Alexandra Ioannidou actually in her effort to describe the grammar and syntax of the FYROM literary speech she described the grammar and syntax of ALL Western Bulgarian dialects, but she coined it as “Macedonian.” In their mind, such a criterion makes the Skopjan dialect, a language. Whom are they kidding?

The arguments they have brought could buy them a bravo among the linguistically ignorant people. If we apply identical criteria to Greece, each village and town in Greece along with cities like Athens and Thessaloniki would end up having about 10 to 20 dialects each and not one of them could reach the point of a language unless the government of Greece designates which of them will be Greece’s literary language. That is a political criterion, not a linguistic one. Greece did the same at the beginning of 1982. Indeed each of us has his or her dialect.

Phonological differences make one speech different from another and in this case the grammatical or phonetic differences are in general the characteristics which one may apply or attributed on all of the Western Bulgarian linguistic group that includes more than 30 dialects. We could easily add the transitional dialects or the Torlak group.

Let me add something else that Misirkov wrote:

Hence one ethnic group does not choose a name for itself, but the neighbouring ethnicities make up a name for it, and the [said] ethnic group adopts it. It is the most common and very natural thing that one’s ethnic name first occurs in one of its neighbouring ethnic groups. So, the neighbouring ethnic groups are related like a godfather and a godchild (Misirkov 1970, 168).

I wonder why didn’t Skopje want Greece to baptize their ethnicity? If it were up to me, I would have baptized the country as Yugoslavonia, which would apply as the nationality to all citizens and Slaviani for the ethnicity of the Slavic population per Misirkov (Misirkov 1970, 168).

Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje surrogates in Greece missed Misirkov’s book and essays preferrering Skopje’s absurdities only because they want to support Skopje’ positions, not of their birth country.

Conclusion

I found the explanations of Alexandra Ioannidou and Skopje surrogates in Greece very political, perhaps somewhat philological, but not at all linguistic. As far as linguistics is concerned, what the Skopje surrogates in Greece wrote was,

As one of the greatest minds of all times put it, “It is no mark of a man's intelligence to be able to confirm whatever he pleases: but to be able to discern that to be true which is true, and that to be false which is false, is the mark and character of intelligence” (Swedenborg 1912, 334).

If Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje surrogates in Greece are behind the recognition of the Macedonian language as referred to in Article 1.3c of the Prespes Agreement and whether the same people had influenced the process or deceived as volunteered experts the Greek negotiators and the political world, the only conclusion one reaches is that Greece lacked negotiating strategy and experts. The country was led like sheep to the slaughter.

I only hope that Skopje keeps violating the Agreement to the point that the blame game starts and the UNSC forces take some action against Skopje. With the present crop in the Greek Parliament regardless of political party, I cannot see any future government taking Skopje to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) requesting cancellation of the Agreement by pressing for the International Law Commission to investigate based on Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter or other pertinent articles of the Vienna Convention.

The question I have is, how is the Greek government going to implement the Agreement. As it is drafted is bound to fuel domestic instability considering the irredentism promoted by external third parties and extremist groups, it undermines Greece’s national interests, and leaves Greece’s psychological aspect of national security undefended; it is a clear threat to Greece’s stability. Usually, a country in psychological disarray seeks solace in some positive aspects of the tragedy. I have no idea what kind of a solace one can reap from the Agreement of Prespes.

Biographical Note

Marcus A. Templar is a Slavicist and former Code Breaker, and Principal Subject Matter Expert in Signal and All-Source Intelligence Analysis serving the U.S. Intelligence Community over 30 years. During his Intelligence career, he has supported U.S. intelligence operations on a national level and served as a professor of Intelligence and National Security Courses in U.S. Intelligence Schools.

His academic research includes the political ideology of Bulgarian intellectuals after the Commune of Paris and the effect of their ideology to the establishment, development, and activities of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) aka VMRO. The research also examines the organization’s activities in order to create a communist regime of Bulgarians in Macedonia at least 20 years before the founding of the USSR. More specifically, his work analyzes the relationship and interaction among members and factions of the organization (IMRO) with contemporary political, pan-Slavic movements and governments, as well as the organization’s political and terrorist activities.

Academically he is intrinsically interested in matters of national security, public governmental policy, and strategy.

Professionally he has been involved in the Order of Battle, Military Doctrine, and Strategic Culture of Turkey, Ukraine, as well as Counter-terrorism in the Horn of Africa.

The Hellenic Cultural Commission sponsored a Panel Discussion on July 25 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The panel discussion transpired during the Convention of the Family Supreme Convention of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association (AHEPA).

​The moderator of the panel was Mr. Lou Katsos, and the participants in the discussion were Professor Alexander Kitroeff, former Ambassador Karolos Gadis and I. The subject of the discussion was, "Turkish Irredentism and the Finlandization of Eastern Mediterranean."

As it is known, Finlandization is the process or result of being obliged to favor, for economic reasons, or at least not to oppose, the interests of a great power as in the case of Finland the interests of the former Soviet Union despite not being politically allied to it.

The panelists suggested and discussed several points of view from historical, political, diplomatic and psychological aspects of Turkey and its present leadership especially of President Recep Tayyıp Erdoğan. Some of the opinions expressed below were also communicated during a radio program and individual conversations.

The core of the discussion was Erdoğan and the new Turkey as he has envisioned it and to implement his vision, even before he took an oath as President, he issued a published a 143-page dictum changing the operation of every single Ministry and other agencies under the Ministries. After that, Erdoğan continued issuing decrees after decrees making the Republic of Turkey, a fully functional dictatorship that Ataturk would be jealous and the Sultan disgusted.

Controlling all political life, Erdoğan could essentially become President for Life whose psychopathic cruelty would make François Duvalier, also known as Papa Doc, of Haiti a Cub Scout. This man fundamentally holds an unchecked wicked authority as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orban. They all used democracy to expand their influence in the same manner that the Communists had done in the past.

But Erdoğan’s vision for Turkey is magnificently ambitious and costly. Because the Straits are getting shallower and narrower, Erdoğan is determined to open a canal from the Black Sea – five km from Baklalı - to the Sea of Marmara – Küçükçekmece 25 km west of Istanbul; the name of the canal is, Canal Istanbul. Erdoğan is determined to make the canal the rival of Suez and Panama. Erdoğan has brushed aside legal, environmental, and budgetary questions to make the canal a central plank of his re-election bid on June 24. The Financial Times has quoted Erdoğan saying, “One of my first projects in the new era will be to start building Canal Istanbul”… “There may be a Suez somewhere, a Panama somewhere else, but with Canal Istanbul, we will send the world a message.” (Financial Times, Ayla Jean Yackley, May 29, 2018)

The problem is monetary. When Erdoğan announced the Canal in 2011, the estimated cost was 13 billion U.S. dollars. Today it has increased to 15 billion U.S. dollars, and by the time the project ends its price could reach the 20 billion U.S. dollars.

Also, Erdoğan wants to build at least one runway, long enough to take care of taxiing needs of such a military aircraft as an F35. However, it always depends on specific variants as whether Turkey will be trusted to own such an aircraft, the capability for such a heavy and costly aircraft to maneuver (turn, climb, run), the specific models of the aircraft (traditional takeoff/landing versus vertical takeoff/landing), guns, and a few others. With a price tag of $94.6 million U.S. dollars each for only the basic F35A, the price for a more advanced model of F35 could increase its cost to 132.44 million U.S. dollars.

If we add the above sums to Erdoğan’s grand plan regarding the Istanbul Airport, we can quickly add the cost of 12 billion U.S. dollars. The idea is the improvement of the airport by adding six runways across a strip-like land. It will take about a decade to complete with the projection of making the busiest airport not just in the region, but also on the planet. The projected number of passengers could hit the 200 million people annually.

However, in a global economy, which is afflicted gradually by worries from an unfolding trade war to higher oil prices, Turkey could be very close to comfort. Turkey’s economy is 22nd in the world below that of the state of Illinois, which is 20th, and Russia, which is 13th in the world. Starting a business is not an easy venture, but including family in the governments is unwise. In a country whose finances constitute a bubble ready to burst it is the worst thing anyone wants to do; yet, Erdoğan has installed Berat Albayrak as the Finance Minister, who is a businessman and politician, but also his son-in-law.

The question is whether Erdoğan will listen to his relative or he will tell his son-in-law to implement his personal policies. “It is abundantly clear that the president’s whim will appraise all future strategic decisions taken about anything in Turkey, and the new cabinet will function purely as a rubber-stamping forum,”… “The only constraints set to be imposed on Erdoğan are those likely to derive from bond and currency markets, which may inhibit any overtly reckless economic policymaking” (Bloomberg Businessweek, Onur Ant, July 10, 2018).

The changes in the function of the government are expected to have a severe impact on Turkish assets. It is assumed that “Turkish assets to remain under pressure unless policy measures address the country’s high inflation and external dependence. The central bank has not raised rates enough like some other countries given the government’s focus on GDP growth rather than inflation or currency stability” (Gopalakrishnan, DBS Bank). On the other hand, Turkey is likely to face many challenges ahead, as it’s running a massive fiscal deficit but “don't have savings to fund it.”

Also, Erdoğan was the one who decided Turkey’s monetary policy, keeping the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey captive. He has recently prevented constraints attempted by the Central Bank. In the last two years under Erdoğan’s control of monetary policy helped the Turkish voters to do better by offering cash bonuses and other bribing methods. But Turkey has had extraordinarily relaxed both monetary and fiscal policy, which created a variety of issues: The Turkish lira has declined, the inflation rate is in the area of 12% although the target was 5% and also Erdoğan’s restriction of the Central Bank’s independence. Sitting on interest rates while opting for a monetary policy that prioritizes growth over controlling its inflation is a real problem.

Nevertheless, the voters preferred the man who as Mayor of Istanbul had cleaned the city even if their first choice was a bit shaky is an understatement. Democracy in Turkey suffers since its inception oscillating from the Socialists of Ataturk to the right wing Islamists of Erdoğan, and that includes about 1.5 million who live abroad most of them in Germany.

The burst of the economic bubble and the consequent implosion of the present political survival of Turkey is not a matter of supposition, but a matter of time.

About Marcus A. TemplarProfessor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Signal Intelligence and All-Source Intelligence Analyst. During his career as a U.S. Intelligence Officer, besides organizational duties, he discharged the responsibilities of a U.S. Army Observer/Controller, Instructor of Intelligence Courses specializing in Deconstruction of Strategies, Foreign Disclosures Officer, and Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian.

In the 2018 Macedonian League Annual Assessment, we talk with Marcus A. Templar for an in-depth analysis of the Macedonia Name Issue; the Greek political establishment; Greek diaspora affairs and our future.

Not taking into account the recent Prespes Agreement, where did the Greek political establishment go wrong on domestic and foreign policies, especially as it concerns the “FYROM Name Issue?”

The answer is simple, EVERYWHERE!Modern Greece does not have a clear, coherent national goal. The national objectives of the Greek revolutionaries as expressed at the Declaration of Independence, Justice, Personal Freedom, Ownership, and Honor, over the years have become irrelevant as politicians interpret these goals as part of their personal, not national aims. They have the mentality of the kodzabashis, i.e. the appointed heads of village councils, and the Phanariot hospodars, i.e. the masters who ruled the Rum millet as a second governing tier. This mentality has overshadowed the spirit of the 1821 revolution.

​Like the Phanariots of the old times, who “sold the offices under their control and exacted extraordinary taxes and contributions to the fullest extent of their power. Corruption, initiated at the top, extended down to the lowest levels of administration” (Jelavich, 1962). Nikolaos Soutzos expressed decadence of the Greek political crème de la crème as follows, “The prevalence over their competitors and their dominance through the use of insidious means, which the Turks highly encouraged, became the constant pursuit of the Phanariots. It was an incessant struggle, especially when the stakes were linked to their fortune, and often their life." (Soutzo, 1899, 4). ​

Marcus A. Templar, National Security Advisor,Macedonian League

But the kodzabashis the headmen of the enslaved Greece, were not any better. They had prolonged the enslavement of Greece and through their spiritual offspring continue to ensure the maintenance of their Ottoman mentality. This time the terminology and the names are different, but not the narrative. Nothing has changed since. Expressions such as «Ξεςποιοςείμαιεγώ, ρε;» or «μία θεσούλα στο δημόσιο,» «το μέσον» and a few other similar expressions explain why Greece is a mentally Ottoman province. The political elite of Greece and their cohorts govern the country as if they are the hospodars, kodzabashis, and kaymakams of the estate. The sad part is that Greek voters have entrusted them and preserve them with their vote. No matter which party is in government it controls the country through the use of advertising funding in the media. Not only have they managed the country, but they also restrain the diaspora using the same method. No wonder nothing happens in Greece.

The problem is that the above “masters” have downgraded the social education of the Greek nation by indirectly bribing the means of formal, informal, and non-formal education. Such a downgrade benefits the crème de la crème of the Greek ruling society. Under this downgraded learning, patriotism has turned into nationalism and sometimes ultra-nationalism, and hard-core communists give lessons on something they do not understand – democracy.

Only those who understand the full meaning of Socrates’ Crito can fully comprehend the meaning of homeland. Greeks have lost the ideals of their ancestors and the direction that those ideals could lead the country into the 21st century and beyond. Democracy does not work when people think only of themselves and not the general good. Also, people in Greece did not learn and have not learned how to think.

The lack of articulate national goals has resulted in Greece’s lack of coherent national interests. It is why Greece is deprived of proper foreign and domestic policies. Thus Greece has partisan interests which are reflected in foreign and domestic policies. If a country does not arrange a national path for the future it cannot develop a strategy to achieve any goal. Greeks think emotionally based on stories that only those who believe what they read in the “National Enquirer” would believe.

Since 1829, Greece’s foreign and domestic policies revolve around personal interests, direct and indirect reward of the political elite which is reactive, not proactive, to external pressures, movements, events, and circumstances that feed decision-making and behavior of its politicians.

It is said that possession is nine-tenths of the law. This adage means that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. In the case of Skopje, Skopje possesses the name “Macedonia” since 1943 as a constituent republic within Marxist Yugoslavia with full government structure whereas Greece had Macedonia as an administrative unit and often the Press of Athens would call it Northern Greece. Even now, the Athenian Press continues to call Macedonia Northern Greece, never mind the cop-out they give when asked. I understand that in using Northern Greece the Athenian government meant Macedonia and Thrace; however, as Northern Greece or later as Macedonia-Thrace, Macedonia did not have the international exposure that Skopje had.

Yugoslavia started having indications and warnings of political upheavals in 1990. The 14th and last Congress of the League of Yugoslav Communists took place on January 20-22, 1990, the Slovenian and the Croatian delegations left during the Congress. That move by the delegations should have been a warning that something serious was going to happen. By May of 1991, despite the draconian efforts of Vasil Tupurkovski to keep the Republic together, the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia was over. Greece as a neighboring country directly affected by any political and military turmoil should have monitored the situation and it should have assessed the fallout of any mishap in a wide range of possibilities that could affect the region, especially Greece.

The following would hit Greek politicians on the head – on January 3, 1992, and during the informal meeting that took place in Athens between Greek and FYROM experts, the talks were deadlocked because of the insistence of Skopje delegates not to discuss the name of their country. That should have been a very serious indicator and warning of things to come. However, as we say in Greek «πέρα βρέχει» and «τα βόδια μου αργά». On January 26, six days after Pres. Bill Clinton took office the Greek Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs sent a letter to the new President stating that Greece was ready to compromise with Skopje on the name issue. Greece surrendered before the first shot of the war was fired. The same man stated later that in 10 years nobody would remember Macedonia.

Most Greeks and especially politicians and their advisors do not know the national strategic culture of Greece’s neighbors. Greece’s present electoral system does not help either. Most politicians and their advisors not only don’t know Greece’s neighbors but worst of all, they don’t know Greece. They do not care what occurs north of Thebes and south of Corinth. If they knew Greece’s neighbors and Greece itself, the issue of Skopje’s name would not exist at all. But nobody cared. What kind of impression should one form when people in Rhodes say that they lived better under the Italians?

I have talked with a few diplomats and politicians of Greece, and was shocked by their naiveté. They could not even distinguish the difference between how many countries have recognized the FYROM, in general, from those countries that have recognized Skopje under its so-called constitutional name. Skopje keeps promoting that about 130 nations have recognized them, which means nothing. About ten years ago, they claimed something similar until it was revealed that out of 110 or so countries, only 78 of them had recognized them as “Republic of Macedonia.”

So they should have three numbers.

1) How many countries have recognized the FYROM?

2) How many countries have recognized the FYROM as “Macedonia”? Was it a bilateral or erga omnes recognition?

3) How many countries have recognized the FYROM under its provisional name?

Clearly, the Greek MFA has no idea because Greece does not have a functional intelligence process within the MFA. The A3 is as busy as the Maytag repairman under the principle «δε βαρυέσαι» and «ωχ αδερφέ.» The less they know, the better it is for the boss! He can always truthfully say, “nobody told me”. They are supposed to be professionals; it is their job to know.

What is happening today, reminds us of what had happened in 1902. The Bulgarians had sent Sarafov, a Supremist, to Western Capitals to push for the Bulgarian cause over Macedonia.

The Greek government was asleep then as it is today, including the Greek people! Pavlos Melas wrote to Bishop Karavangelis, «Διάβασα τήν ἐκθεσί σου στο ὑπουργεῖο. Μά ἐδῶ κοιμοῦνται. Τί νά σοῦ κάνω ἐγώ;» Moreover, the weapons (Gras, Mauser, Mannlicher-Schönauer) were transported to the Bulgarian komitadjis in Macedonia by Greek mule drovers or αγωγιάτες, so that the Bulgars can fight against and kill Greeks in Macedonia.

On at least one occasion, one of the chief komitadjis, Vasil Tsakalarov, went in person to Athens to buy weapons. There’s no difference today. Skopje has its fifth phalanx in the Greek Parliament itself.

I remember one diplomat had mentioned that Skopje would change its name, as did Myanmar which changed its name from Burma. When I told him that Myanmar was Burma’s ancient name and asked him to name the old name of the FYROM region; he could not even come up with Paeonia.

While Skopje governments implemented the strategy of protraction as they negotiated under the Turkish model of negotiation, it simultaneously bolstered excuses for Greek politicians to procrastinate, as they wanted to avoid signing a treaty on the name that would make them and their party appear as betraying Greece.

While this was taking place, Skopje threw ashes into the eyes of the Greek people, entertaining the thought of being descendants of the ancient Macedonians who miraculously were not Greeks. ALL subsequent governments of the FYROM used denial and deception via non-state and illicit actors working in the background and successfully persuading foreign governments to recognize them as “Republic of Macedonia.” The FYROM diplomacy was and is extraordinarily active on the name issue and recognition of the state as “Macedonia.” They’ll do anything to show their flag!

In contrast, Greece employed extremely dormant and reactive diplomacy lacking a strategy of deterrence with tactics of a courteous, but fatalistic policy. Even the reactive tactics of Greece’s foreign policy proved to have been through an entirely personal lens of her politicians and diplomats who cared more about pleasing their bosses than doing their job by committing to their homeland and protecting the national interests of Greece.

Under such peculiar circumstances, the answer to your question is “Greece went wrong everywhere,” starting in 1951, the year Greece had recognized Marxist Yugoslavia. Would the same politicians direct negotiations of their real estate in a similar manner as they have negotiated the future of one-quarter of Greece’s land and indeed Greece’s future territorial integrity?

The fact is that all governments of Greece, and by their silence the politicians of Greece, have created the problem that Greece has in the form of a self-inflicting wound. Some countries in the world had or still have names such as the Federal Republic of Brazil, Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Germany, and United States of America. These countries were or are known under the name portrayed last: Brazil, Yugoslavia, Germany, America. What did, if anything, the Greek MFA think that the popularized name of “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” would be? Patagonia?

They only looked at the official name of the country, not the popular name that people would be using, especially when we all know people do not care about official names, not even diplomats. Didn’t they know that while Greece would be in its usual lethargic state, Skopje would launch any power in the world to achieve what it wanted and still wants?

Some would argue that during the second century AD, the Romans had called the region of the FYROM, Macedonia Secunda or Salutaris. Doesn’t this justify the present name of the republic?

The argument that the area of the FYROM was called Macedonia Secunda (or Macedonia Salutaris) and this justifies the present name of the Republic is very weak.

To begin with, depending on the time and type of Administration in the Roman Empire, provinces used to change names as well as borders. On one occasion, we see Macedonia starting just north of Stobi excluding Skopje which was in Dardania, and continues south of Lamia, leaving for Epirus a slice of land from Dyrrachium to Messolongi. Romans called south Greece, Achaea, and we had two lands named Epirus: Epirus Vetus and Epirus Nova. Another mess with names comes to us from what are today France, Belgium, and Northern Italy. There we see Gallia Belgica, Gallia Narbonensis, Gallia Lugdunensis, but in other times we know the name Gallia Lugdunensis and Gallia Narbonensis as Celtica while the toponym Gallia is found as Gallia Cisalpina and Gallia Transalpina around Switzerland. At that time one also finds Palaestina Salutaris or Palaestina Tertia and Galatia Salutaris and so on.

The whole naming of a region had to do with whether the administration was in the hands of the Emperor or the Senate. It is also immaterial because not one Macedonian King had named the region of the FYROM as Macedonia. Alexander the Great and his Greeks had reached India, China, and Uzbekistan, but none of these can claim to be ‘Macedonia’.

It is true that King Philip VI of Macedonia had conquered the area up to about the Shar Mountains, but he never changed the name of the region and did not move any Macedonians from Macedonia to Paeonia and Dardania. So, the ethnicity of the local population from Paeonian and Dardanian never changed ethnically to Macedonian Greek.

Romans had occupied some territories of Alexander the Great and his Diadochi and they also occupied almost all of Europe. They did not change the human terrain of the regions they occupied. They had local garrisons and used Latin as their lingua franca of their wide Empire.

Another example is the Ottomans who ruled the area of the Western and South Balkans for about 500 years. They could not alter the local populations even though they settled Turks in the occupied regions and some of the locals changed their religion to Islam. They succeeded in changing the religion of some Slavs like those in Bosnia, who were mostly Serbs, but these people remained Slavs. Muslims of Bosnia are proud of their Slavic heritage and they are first to claim it.

Conquest does not mean occupation with resettlement. On the contrary, when the Byzantine Emperors resettled about half a million Slavs from Macedonia to Bithynia the resettled Slavic population amalgamated with the indigenous population.Over the years and after numerous political and ethnic fusions, the Slavs ended up Turkified (Türkleştirme). That means what actually happened is exactly the opposite of what the FYROM Slavs advocate.

Although the Prespes Agreement is not a done deal yet, what are the national security implications for Greece if the final name of the FYROM includes “Macedonia?” Are its ethnically diverse citizens of the republic going to be recognized as “Macedonians?”

The final name of the FYROM is significant not just to Greece’s national security and territorial integrity but is also essential to the national security of all countries adjacent to FYROM, including the stability of the Peninsula and the Middle East.

The issue of the country’s name is different from the subject of the ethnicity of its citizens. What is important is the name of the ethnic group of the Slav people who have no ethnic surname. According to international norms, nationality follows the name of the country regardless of the actual or perceived ethnicity of the person. Holders of passports of multiethnic nations as the United States, Canada, Australia, etc. see the name of the land next to “Nationality.” Thus, the issue comes down to one segment of the FYROM citizens who until November 29, 1943, were considered as part of the Serbian nation along with Montenegrins. This is evident from the Comintern Resolution of January 11, 1934.

Thus if we assume (without taking into account the Prespes Agreement) that the country’s final name is Povardarie, then the passports of Povardarie will indicate as “Nationality: Povardarie,” even if the bearer is ethnically Albanian, Turk, or Greek. In general, ethnicity of individuals is something personal. On the other hand, the ethnicity, language, and heritage of the Slavic population as far as I am concerned should be ‘Jugosloveni’ or South Slavs. This better reflects their slavic heritage, which constitutes an ethnic and linguistic transition zone between Bulgaria and Serbia.

It is a thorn in the whole agreement. The government of the FYROM cannot say on one hand that they are Slavs, but on the other, they call themselves “ethnic Macedonians.” Even Misirkov did not call them “ethnic” Macedonians; He made sure he mentioned them as Slavs. ‘Macedonians’ for Misirkov was a regional name and applied to all people of Macedonia regardless of ethnicity.By “Macedonian people”, Comintern meant all the people of geographic Macedonia regardless of ethnicity (Hristo Andonov-Poljanski. 1981, v. 2).

I am not even touching the issue that the region of the FYROM became officially “Macedonia” in 1900. I consider myself a Macedonian of Greek heritage since I was born within the geographical area of the ancient kingdom. Who are these people to take away my right to call myself a Macedonian?

I would push for the name “Central Balkan Republic” or “Jugoslavonija”, or better “Povardarie”. It is an existing name within the FYROM and all its people are very familiar with it. It is also a name of the Bishopric of Veles and Povardarie.

Let’s stay on the previous topic and focusing only on the Slavic population of the FYROM, why is the issue of ethnicity, language and heritage so contentious for both sides these days?

The Interim Accord was only about the name of the country. Here’s my argument that Greeks do not know their neighbors.

What about the National Anthem of the FYROM, which is being played outside of the country as well? Nobody thus far has answered this simple question: How can the state change its name “Macedonia” but keep its national anthem intact? Does anyone in Greece know its lyrics? The first verse calls the nation “Macedonia” (Today over Macedonia, the new sun of Freedom is being born).

Has anyone in the Greek MFA thought about it? Or are they going to conveniently claim that the national anthem is a domestic issue as are the ethnicity, language, heritage and all other derivatives of “Macedonia”?

The claim that the “Macedonian” language was recognized by the UN in 1977 is absurd. The UN recognized Taiwan, a country with a vital economy, since the 1945 San Francisco Conference. The country was a Charter member of the UN. Despite such a status, Taiwan was expelled by the General Assembly of the UN on October 25, 1971. It was unrecognized for political reasons. The issue of recognition of a language by the UN is not linguistic, but political; it may and can be unrecognized. The question is whether Greece has ever recognized anything “Macedonian”. We are referring to one-quarter of purely Greek land, not the ciftlik of Nasreddin Hodja.

Typically, the issue of ethnicity, heritage, and language are issues of domestic use, but in this case, they are very important. When Greece signed the Interim Accord, the people responsible should have known better. They messed up due to their ignorance and personal convenience, so they can’t expect others to get the snake out of its den. And, what about the last failure? Whose fault is it? This has been going on for 75 years, however, the Greek political elite keep governing like ostriches.

We have seen many Greek organizations demand that Greece withdraws from negotiations altogether. Let’s say the recent Prespes Agreement fails, what would happen if Greece withdraws from future negotiations with the FYROM on the name issue?

My first recommendation is that all Greeks who follow the moves of the FYROM Slav diaspora should stop imitating them. They are nonsensical and their goals are different from the aims of Greek people. This idea of withdrawal from the talks started by the Skopje diaspora about ten years ago and I was hoping that Skopje under Gruevski had listened to them. I was thinking, “get more rope to hang yourselves,” but unfortunately it did not happen.

I have read some Greeks are calling for such a thing. It shows how little these people understand the international political scope of the issue.

In answer to your question, Greece could withdraw from the negotiations if the issue were bilateral. It would be with little or no political cost for the country. Skopje has tried to make it bilateral in the past; and luckily Greece fought against it. This is one of the correct things Greece has done on the issue.

On a bilateral basis, the Interim Accord would be null and void making the erga omnes and inclusion of the name in the FYROM’s Constitution irrelevant and illogical. Every single country would recognize the FYROM as “Macedonia” leaving Greece on its own. The FYROM would get into the EU and NATO and in every organization it wishes, since the name issue would not exist. Greece would have to deal with Skopje being alone and without international support. I do not believe that any Greek wants such a thing.

All those people who want Greece to withdraw from negotiations because it cannot give the name Macedonia to the Slavs, in fact, become agents of Skopje on the issue because they’re thinking with their heart and not their head. I would say the same thing for those who want Greece out of the EU and NATO. They think that Russia will help Greece. That might be true, but knowing the foreign interests of Russia one of those interests is the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its move from Constantinople to Moscow. Such is the goal of Russia. Russia will also help its Pan-Slavic friends, which means that Thessaloniki will go to the FYROM and Kavala will become part of Bulgaria leaving Alexandroupolis to Turkey.

If this is what the Russophile Greeks want, then their wish will materialize. It should be known that since Aleksey Mikhailovich, father of Peter the Great, Russia’s main national interest is to support its goal for World supremacy and consequently Russian domestic and foreign policies reflect just that. This explains why the Russian Patriarch was absent from the Synod in Crete a few years ago although the preparation for the Synod had started about 35 years earlier.

The Vatican Newspaper, Il Osservatore Romano, had indicated that if the Patriarch of Moscow attended the Synod, the Orthodox Church would split because of the demands of the Russian Church. Their argument is that they lead 350 million Orthodox faithful whereas the Ecumenical Patriarch leads only about 1,500 souls. Such a statement indicates that the Patriarch of Moscow does not consider the Patriarch of Constantinople as Ecumenical, but only a local bishop with a limited flock. In reality, an Ecumenical Patriarch includes all Orthodox faithful of the World including the Russians; it is why he is called Ecumenical, not because of the number of his direct followers.

Greeks should be careful what they wish for regarding the Russians because they might get it. Then they will not be able to blame others, but themselves. International law is not case law or statutory law, but a common law. To quote Wikipedia, “The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts.” In the case of treaties, the precedents seek answers from previous similar treaties. The UN is in possession of such treaties.

Some international norms, precedents, and guarantees regulate international talks and treaties as they are incorporated into the set of rules generally accepted as binding in relations between countries, aka international law.

Greece is not in a position of prestige because the people are disunited and the political parties deal with their micro-political scheming issues, just as the kodzabashis did two hundred years ago. Greece is only a European country geographically speaking. It is progressively becoming worse in a disappointing way.

Some erroneously believe that the name issue is a uniquely Greek issue. But, that is not the case. Explain how other countries deal with similar issues of shared regions.

Let me start by saying that many countries in the world share regions. Luxembourg, for instance, shares the French prefecture with the same name. Vojvodina (Serbia), Romania, and Hungary split the region of Banat. The Flemish, i.e., Dutch-speaking part of Belgium is the continuation of the Netherlands, and the French-speaking is a continuation of France. The name Great Britain goes back to Britany in France; both names go back to the Bretons, a Celtic tribe. There are two European regions with the name Galicia, one in Spain and one in Eastern Europe. Hungary, Croatia, and Serbia share the territory of Baranya or Baranja. Let us not forget Thrace.

The name is not the problem. The United States has a state named New Mexico, and Mexico has a state called Baja or South California. I can go on with similar examples.

Let’s go a little bit further than that. The most striking element of the National Anthem of the Netherlands is at the end of the first stanza. It states, “The prince of Orange I am; afraid of nothing; I have always remained loyal to the king of Spain.” It is a remnant of the Napoleonic Wars, but I have not heard any Spaniard claiming the Netherlands. Therefore, the whole matter goes to the mentality of the people of the south Balkans.

The name of the region of FYROM as Macedonia is the result of political events:

Some intellectuals participating in a convention in Belgrade in 1865 envisioned the Balkan Federation in a politically socialist basis, not in a religious sense as Rhigas Pheraios had done many years before.

The Berlin Conference of June 1878 deprived Serbia of expanding west although Serbia received other means of compensation from Austria. Serbia thus extended south, a move that conflicted with the territorial aspiration of Bulgaria even after its territorial folding. Bulgaria had maintained its national ambitions long after its defeat in the Berlin Conference. It moved its Capital to Sofia (1879), annexed Eastern Rumelia (1885), which the Berlin Conference had made an autonomous territory within the Ottoman Empire. To balance the domestic political scene, the current Bulgarian government also made the Eastern Bulgarian dialect its literary language (1899).

Communism took advantage of the Bulgarian expansionist foreign policy and proceeded with a strategy that even if Bulgaria were not directly involved, she would have a lot to say on the Federation of Macedonia and Thrace.

When the three documents are studied, one understands that the main objective was a federal Macedonia and Thrace under the administration of the communist IMRO. It is obvious that the word “nation” in those documents referred to a multicultural nation-state or a nation as in “United Nations,” not an ethnic one. Such multicultural nations were the answer to the Communist “National Question.”

Based on your experience, what is the driving force behind the FYROM’s irredentist claims on the northern Greek province of Macedonia? Using past examples how could these irredentist claims serve to affect Greece’s national security.

Briefly put, the driving force is the territorial expansion over Macedonia by military occupation; it cannot be done otherwise. Their strategy hides this fact behind the imaginary issue of the so-called human rights of “Macedonians.” They do it because they think in a Court of Law such nonsense prevails; it does not. They see other cases of legitimate minority complaints around the world, the intervention of great powers in setting new borders and they hope they can identify themselves with such matters. But to do it, they employ deceiving and criminal means. Photoshop is one of the methods they employ. The bottom line is that they cannot Photoshop facts.

For the second part of the question the answer is that they work with two domestic Greek groups – the communists of Greece who still support Comintern’s resolutions under the doctrine “Comintern might not have been right, but it was not wrong”, and the ultra-right wing who believe that they are the only ones who care about Greece. Most members of these two groups do not even know the modern history of Greece and how Greece’s political instability has affected the country so far. Both groups live in a parallel universe.

The brief history of Modern Greece is as follows:

Greece declared independence in 1821 (officially on January 26, 1822, in Epidavros). However by 1827, while fighting the Turks, Greeks engaged in two civil wars while the Turko-Egyptian Ibrahim was threatening to suppress the revolution. After its independence in 1829, the first political parties that sprang up were the "Russian," "English" and "French," while the newly established country was already bankrupt. Nicholas Karlovich Giers of the Asian Section of the Russian Foreign Ministry stated the following regarding the assassination of Capodistrias: “the assassin, Mavromichalis, belonged to one of the most distinguished families of the region, who looked with envy upon [Capodistrias] rise. The only thing that has changed since then are the names of the political parties, not the mentality of the Greeks. Personal ego, especially among those disqualified to speak, feeds Greece’s political instability.

The “Μαύρο '97” or “Ατυχής πόλεμος του 1897” (Eng: “Black ’97” or the “Unfortunate War of 1897”) took place because of people’s wishful thinking instead of weighing up reality and waiting. The result of that war was an Ottoman military victory after which Greece ceded small parts of Thessaly to the Ottoman Empire. It would be nice if people read the background of the war and the full outcome to understand that ultra-nationalistic overtones brought Greece to humiliation and bankruptcy. The embarrassment came when the commander of the Ottoman Army stated ostentatiously that he was ready to march to Athens and drink coffee on the Acropolis. Thankfully the Great Powers of Europe intervened stopping the Turks from advancing south of Olympus.

That was not enough. Following this, we had the National Schism between 1914 and 1917. The National Schism set the foundations for the foolish overconfidence of an unprepared, almost defunct Army to at least control Ionia and a government to lay claim on Constantinople. Instead of being satisfied with whatever the ally victors had given to Greece, they wanted more. They proceeded to capture and destroy Ankara. The Battles of Sakarya and Dumlupınar (26–30 August 1922) brought Greece to reality. Ionia was damaged, and Constantinople was lost. Turks still remember the date of their victory. August 30 every year is the date of military promotions and new positions.

Due to National Schism, the loss of prestige and non-existent political will, Greece could not even enforce the Autonomy of Northern Epirus.

In the case of the Greek-Italian War (1940-1941), Greece was a clear victor delivering to the Allied Powers not only a physical victory but also a tremendous moral victory; it was the first Allied victory they so badly needed. One must consider the defeat of the UK at the beaches of Dunkirk, Belgium, and the annihilation of France by Germany that rendered the Maginot lines a simple hurdle. For that decisive victory, Greece was awarded the Dodecanese.

Despite the prestige that Greece had enjoyed, due to securing the first allied victory in defeating an Axis power, the domestic instability, and fanfare during the WWII Peace talks in Paris (1946-1947) was responsible for Greece losing Cyprus. The United States wanted to pass Cyprus to Greece. However, the domestic turmoil in Greece and the usual fanfare and bogus claims of some Greeks from Florida brought the intention of the United States in the open and found stiff resistance by the Soviet Union and the UK.

Between 1966 and 1967, Greece was in political turmoil changing governments as often as people change their shirts. I witnessed it firsthand. I still remember the blockade of Thessaloniki by land about a month before the coup of April 21, 1967. Communist-led farmers had closed the co-capital of Greece from all nine land connections. I was in Thessaloniki, and I know what happened. Such domestic instability led to the revolt of April 21, 1967. Following seven years of uncertainty, another coup, dual at this time, took place. The first one resulted in the displacement of the Papadopoulos regime. The new military government, feeling that it was their “patriotic” duty to unite Cyprus with Greece launched a coup in Cyprus under the EOKA fighter Sampson giving the excuse to Turkey to intervene to “protect” its minority. The Greek Generals and the “inactive” politicians behind them should have known better. Turkey wanted to do the same in 1962, but its invasion was averted by the United States. The situation worsened because in 1964 the United States wanted to see Cyprus united with Greece under certain conditions (Acheson Plan). Both Archbishop Makarios and the Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou rejected it because the plan included “a sovereign Turkish base on the island that would limit enosis and give Ankara too much say in Cyprus’ affairs”.

Between 1829 and the present, Greece has gone bankrupt five times each time bringing the nation into further instability; as if the political instability was not enough. Uncertainty in Greece means calamity for the country. It will be beneficial for Greece if her people start thinking in these logical terms.

Now to the hot topic on everyone's mind lately: the "North Macedonia Agreement” at Prespes. What are your views on this Agreement?

This Agreement goes far beyond the scope of the Interim Accord of 1995, which only applied to the name of the country. It seems that the FYROM’s negotiators seized this opportunity during negotiations. The Greek side should have refused to negotiate anything more than the name of the country. It seems however, the Skopje’s negotiators got the hint that Greeks were easy prey from the manner Mrs. Dora Bakoyanni had negotiated and accepted the adjective “Macedonian” as ethnicity, language, and heritage. Actually, at that time, she had accepted and pushed the name to the Greek American diaspora not as erga omnes, but “for international use” claiming that it was the same thing. Actually, Mr. Panagopoulos or Panagiotopoulos, I do not exactly recall, of the Greek Embassy in Washington was the bearer of the news. The Greek side should stick to its guns and refuse to talk about issues that were not included in the Interim Agreement. Bulgaria was not stupid to have done so.

Having said that, I was hoping that it would not be an Agreement, but a Treaty. I am against this Agreement for a number of reasons especially the fact that it does not clearly address the false informal and non-formal education that the FYROM diaspora disseminates to themselves and their posterity, including the influence of their Church. In addition, I have a problem with the FYROM diaspora that injects hatred in their offspring against the Greek nation. It offers lip service to such a vital issue.

To me, the most important issue is that it is NOT a Treaty, but an Agreement. Although in international law, there is no real difference in validity, they do differ in the manner that the two are handled and the level of their standing. The difference is often the number of votes needed in a country’s Parliament to ratify an Agreement or a Treaty. As Greeks know, although the Interim Accord was ratified by the Parliament in Skopje, the Simitis government never brought it to the Greek Parliament for ratification because it was an Accord or Agreement. The problem I always had is, although the governing party was silent on the issue, the official opposition was silent as well. Agreements do not have to be brought for ratification. It is true that it was a command of the UNSC, the law enforcement body of the United Nations, but it should have still been offered to Parliament for discussion and ratification. Mr. Papoulias would have had a lot of explaining to do.

Coming to the present issue, Nikos Voutsis, the present Speaker of the Parliament, declared that the matter will be offered to the Parliament for discussion and ratification. What is unclear is that he mentioned ratification of this agreement will require a very large majority in the Greek Parliament. “There is no constitutional provision for 180 votes, but for such a serious matter, the larger the majority will be, the better for all”. Really?

What exactly does the Article 28.2 of the Greek Constitution stand for? It states,

“Authorities provided by the Constitution may by treaty or agreement be vested in agencies of international organizations when this serves an important national interest and promotes cooperation with other States. A majority of three-fifths of the total number of Members of Parliament shall be necessary to vote the law ratifying the treaty or agreement (website: Parliament of Greece).

Mr. Voutsis is the Speaker of the Parliament, but he has no reading comprehension. The whole article 28 deals with international law, but he cannot find the reason for legal approval of a treaty or agreement?

As for the Agreement itself, between 1950 to 2015, Greece, directly and indirectly, gave up about 80% of what the FYROM wanted. The name “Macedonia” was given indirectly in 1950 when Greece established a Consulate General in the Capital of the People’s Republic of Macedonia. The mere establishment of an official Greek diplomatic office within the former Yugoslavia implied an indirect recognition.

So in essence, the negotiations between the FYROM and Greece did not start subject to a clean slate. International law is common law based on precedent unlike Greece's domestic law, which is based on statutes. Thus as time passed since the 1951 normalization of relations between Greece and the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, SFRJ, Greece kept giving away or recognizing institutions and agreements. Also, by ignoring developments on the Macedonian issue, even as a side effect, such acts kept accumulating. Thus by 1995, Greece had already given about 50-60% of what they wanted as fait accompli. Most of the time under the upsetting procrastination and indifference expressed by «ωχ, αδελφέ» «δε βαριέσαι», «ε και τι έγινε», «και ποιος θα το μάθει;». According to the former MFA of Greece, Dora Bakoyanni, by 2010 Greece had already awarded Skopje 80% of what it sought by constantly giving in. Thus, Skopje had no incentive to allow Greece to receive the remaining 20%. Holding to the already possessed 80%, it negotiated the remaining 20% adhering to the dictum “what is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable.” It has been Skopje’s traditional approach to the name issue since 1991(Templar, August 28, 2014).

Upon reading the entire agreement, the deficiencies were evident as if it were put together by a group of 15-year-old high school students who wrote their individual pieces and compiled the agreement without even reading it.

The agreement covers legal issues at the government level. It offers lip service to how legal definitions and provisions would be used by the people of Greece and its Macedonian Greek diaspora. It provides ethnic cover for the Macedonian Slavs, but it does nothing to protect the regional identity of Macedonian Greeks like me. As the diaspora of the FYROM has embraced the Macedonian national identity, they will have a very solid stance to declare that they are rightfully Macedonians. Nobody among the common international community would care about the Agreement, nor that their history has nothing to do with THE ancient Macedonians. The so-called experts in the Greek MFA have started an inferno that will die when the Macedonian region of Greece gets incorporated into ‘North Macedonia’. The geniuses of humanity from the ‘Republic of Athens’ have NO idea whom they are dealing with. They should come to Australia next year to learn a thing or two and leave their conceit back in Greece.

Some parts of the Agreement make sense, but others do not; their vagueness will hurt Greek national interests but mostly the relations of our diaspora. Making the FYROM Slavs “Macedonians” even under the definition that Misirkov offered in his book On Macedonian Matters deprives the Macedonian Greeks of their true Macedonian Heritage. Other provisions nullify or even contradict stipulations of the same article or muddy other articles of the agreement.

In general, Article 3, for instance, reinforces the Peace, Friendship and Mutual Protection between Serbia and Greece signed in Thessaloniki on June 1, 1913, by the Greek ambassador to Belgrade, Ioannis Alexandropoulos, and the Serbian ambassador to Athens, Mateja Bošković; it is known as the Koromilas - Bošković Protocol. Under article 3, Skopje accepts the borders of 1913.

Then we jump to the issue of citizenship or legal nationality. Article 1.b in the Agreement is unacceptable.

The Agreement offers two meanings in the term "nationality". In international law, the term nationality is a loose term of citizenship. American passports for instance bear as nationality “United States of America”; it does not state “American”. In the case of this agreement, the two parties should have done the same; on the issue of nationality, the name of the country should be written, not the adjective Macedonian as it refers to ethnicity in article 7. That would have prevented part of the future headaches.

The agreement sees all citizens of the FYROM as “Macedonians” from the scope of a community of descent. So according to this agreement, the FYROM is 100% Slavic, but also North Macedonian. Thus the people of FYROM are given a choice, the Slavs are Macedonians in nationality, but the rest of them are North Macedonians. The problem from the point of international law is simple. There are two countries, one is Macedonia with its own nationals and the other one is North Macedonia with its own nationals. But how can citizens belong to a country under the name Macedonia that does not exist?

Coming to the issue of history, it correctly deprives the Slavs of any part of Greek history. However, the real issue was not, is not, and will never be ancient history as most Greeks believe. There is nothing in the history of the Slavs that connects them to ancient Greek history. Misirkov born in Pella knew extremely well who and what the ancient Macedonians were. He had never mentioned ancient history at all.

The history myth started in 1936 in Melbourne from the followers of the Bulgarian General Mihajilov and it continued later by their posterity under the thought, "if we are Macedonians, we must be descendants of the ancient Macedonians; otherwise what kind of Macedonians are we?" It was based on faulty logic and stories that their grandparents told them.

Some historians doubt that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks on various pretexts, but not a single historian connects the Slavs a historical continuity to the ancient Macedonians, not one. Nobody considers the sermon of Pribojevic and the Book of Orbini as historical theses.

But the issue is very different from what the agreement addresses. Even if the FYROM had signed treaties that excluded the name Macedonia in their name, language, ethnicity and heritage the morons of VMRO-DPMNE, their Golden Dawn type (and there are plenty of those), will still claim ancient Macedonian ancestry. I had a numerous conversations with Hungarians and Croats of the Golden Dawn type and I could not believe the absurdities they said.

But what concerns me is not only the combination of the entire Article 1, Article 7 (paragraphs 2, 3, 4) and Article 8 (paragraphs 1, 2, 5), but in particular, Article 8.5.

As previously stated, I wonder if anyone in the A3 has ever read and understood the national anthem of the FYROM. The agreement does not indicate anything of the kind. Despite the explanations in article 7, the agreement considers the country to be “Macedonia” and treats it as such, since it does not touch its national anthem. If everything is erga omnes, the FYROM under the name “North Macedonia” cannot have a national anthem that pertains to Macedonia, which is a region of Greece.

In addition, what exactly does paragraph 7.5 mean in relation to Article 7 as a whole?

The main concern is, who will be scientists and experts from the Greek side that will negotiate the history of Greece, including ancient history, and the history of the Macedonian struggle? If the Minority Research Center (KEMO) and the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP) get involved in “negotiating” the agreement, then:

a) All the Vlach-speaking Greeks of Krushevo, that is the victims of Ilinden, will be renamed "ethnic Macedonians"

b) the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (EMEA) will be proclaimed an "ethnic Macedonian Liberation Movement" with philanthropic and benevolent intentions, forgetting their terrorist acts of the “Boatmen” and the “Miss Stone Affair”

c) Pavlos Melas, the Metropolitan Germanos Karavangelis and so many other Greeks who gave their blood for Macedonia will be called "terrorists"

d) The approximately 30,000 kidnapped children from all over Greece will end up being boy scouts going camping with the blessings of their parents

One must always bear in mind that even though the Agreement states the preservation of Greek history within Greek contexts, it does NOT explicitly and unambiguously state that ancient Macedonian history is an integral part of Greek history.

Do not assume that this is implied by the wording of the Agreement. Such an issue can be resolved by the exchange of letters between the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Skopje. Exchange of letters is a regular institution in diplomatic services.

What makes it particularly intriguing is Article 8.

Article 8.1 cannot be clearly understood. What I have not yet understood is the issue of Article 8.1. This article is an exact copy of Article 7.3 of the Interim Agreement. It is the same article that helped Gruevski and others steal Greek history and transplant it to their Slavic country. Why did they put it back, particularly when Article 8.5 exists? Have there been no lessons learned by the MFA?

8.2 Gives the government in Skopje six months to consider whether the statues are historical or not. What have they done so far?

8.3 In this article, the last paragraph allows any Slav to make copies of whatever Greek they want (e.g., Sun of Vergina) and sell them anywhere. These copies can be in clothes, flags, etc. Its prohibition under Article 8.3 applies only to the government and any organizations affiliated with the Skopje government, either directly or indirectly. Unless I have missed something, it does not apply to the private sector. This means that the spread of Skopje can follow their own drummer.

8.4 This is standard practice in the official gazetteer. It is no longer Solun or Monastiri in official documents. But this is normal for all official documents. Names used in the interior of a country are preferred by names used abroad. These names will be used in the list of UN names, i.e., gazetteer.

As for Article 13, it deals with the former Serbian> former Yugoslavian> current Serbian Free Zone at the harbor of Thessaloniki. Greece has already passed part of the same Zone to Skopje.

Never mind the explanation of Article 7. Greek-Australians should prepare for the fight of their lives. Greece has ensured that they and their offspring will be fighting against the FYROM Slav diaspora for as long as they live.

The negative side of this agreement is that the Greek diplomatic corps, following the official line of the Agreement, will assist the FYROM Slav diaspora, declaring that the Slavs are actually Macedonians and the Macedonian-Greeks are just Greeks who live in Macedonia. The Slavic diaspora is not interested in the agreement or the emphasis on different historical context and cultural heritage. This Agreement actually strengthens their effort to “explain” why they are Macedonians.

Until now, the FYROM Slav diaspora only had academics side against them. Even Badian and Borza were clearly stating that the modern “Macedonians” could not claim a historical continuity with the ancient Macedonians. Now they have the official political side stating that they can be called Macedonians, because they moved to Macedonia during the 6th-7th centuries, and their name comes from their habitation. It gives them a regional, not a sanguine disposition but it still gives them the historical name. It clearly states their Slavic origin and it does the same with their language and heritage.

I’m assuming that according to Article 15, visitors from the FYROM to archaeological sites will follow the rules of the Ministry of Culture that only certified guides will explain any and all historical facts related to the site. This must apply especially to the students, who until now they had their own “learned” teachers to explain.

From the composition of the Agreement, it looks like after the negotiating teams finished their job, someone took a superficial glance over the Agreement and approved it, without considering possible redundancies or conflicting statements in different sections. To put it bluntly, the Agreement was rushed kicking the tin away for others to get the snake out of its den. Eventually, and I suspect sooner than later, the snake will prove to be a gargantuan komodo dragon with lethal saliva.

As it is, the Agreement needs many explanatory notes and exchange of official letters like the ones that accompanied the Interim Agreement, but very few people know about those letters.

When one regresses to 1822, the connection to issues associated with the problems that Greece has becomes apparent. Political expediency, along with ignorance of the real world outside of Athens, is the source of all evils created by Athens. Because the creators of the problems are either incapable or politically unwilling to solve them, they turn around and ask for foreign help, whilst simultaneously releasing their partisan henchmen to tacitly “inform” the public that the Germans or the Americans are behind all of Greece’s calamities. Of course, they are behind them – their own boss had asked them to help.

For the sake of Greece’s survival, the Greek MFA needs to understand that Greece is far beyond the real estate between Thebes, Sounion, and Corinth – Athens is not Greece; it is simply part of Greece. Greece includes all of us who expect guidance and enlightenment from our home country, but all we get is a luminous darkness of corruption, conceit, and indifference that amounts to political immaturity.

The way politicians govern Greece is reminiscent of the Phanariots of Wallachia and the kodzabashis of the Sultan. The Sultan is dead, but their spirit lives on in the Parliament of Greece.

They better go back and re-write this Agreement before it is too late to save Macedonia.

​If you were tasked with changing something in the Constitution of the Hellenic Republic, what would it be?

Oh, that’s easy. We have to try to at least keep the politicians honest:

1. ResidenceAll elected officials shall physically reside within the district they are elected and represent for at least 10 years before they register their candidacy. Such a clause shall apply to all elected officials including the leaders of all political parties in the Parliament without exception. They shall be Greek citizens by birth or naturalization. No elected official shall be allowed to hold any other nationality but Greek. It also applies to residents of the diaspora unless the law changes to allow representatives of the diaspora in the Greek Parliament.

* Explanation: As it is today if a person from the diaspora wants to run for office in Greece this person will have to follow the same rules that apply to all residents of Greece who want to be elected in the Parliament.

2. NationalityCivil servants no matter how high or how low in rank or position shall have only Greek nationality. Such a requirement shall apply to all and any military personnel with any kind of Security Clearance. If such personnel have dual or multiple nationalities, the same personnel shall renounce all foreign nationalities before they enter the service or force. As the New Testament states, "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.”

3. Referenduma. The Parliament will decide on issuing a notice of a referendum concerning specific matters within its sphere of competence by a simple majority vote of the total number of Representatives. The decision of the majority of voters in a referendum shall be adopted on condition that more than half of the total number of registered voters had voted.

b. The Parliament will be obliged to issue a notice of a referendum if one is proposed by at least, say, 5% of the registered voters. The decision made in such a referendum will be binding.

4. The President of the Republic will be elected directly by the peopleThe President of the Republic will be elected in general and direct elections, by secret ballot, for a single six-year term. The President of the Republic shall physically reside for a minimum of ten years within Greece at the day s/he is elected to office. The President of the Republic shall be a national of the Hellenic Republic by birth and only of the Hellenic Republic even if she/he resides abroad. A person may be elected President of the Republic if over the age of at least 40 on the day of the election. A person may not be elected President of the Republic if, on the day of the election, he/she has not been a physical resident of the Hellenic Republic at least ten years in a row. Owning property in Greece while physically living abroad does not qualify one as being a physical resident.

Greeks in Greece and in the diaspora held rallies on the “Macedonia” name issue sporadically. Some of these rallies were quite large, but the question remains: was there a message attached to those rallies or did the outside world penalize the message and Greece along with it?

Many messages used in those rallies make sense only to Greeks; however, they give the wrong message to foreigners with no understanding of the issue. Either the organizers do not seem to care, or they feel like isolating people who genuinely care about Greece. People have to understand that what makes sense to us is not necessarily a useful tool to spread our message. ‘One message fits all’ is the wrong concept. We can satisfy our pride and our ego, but simultaneously sacrifice our message or play it smart and spread the right message without over-dramatization, sensationalism, and ultra-nationalism.

To foreigners, slogans such as “Macedonia is Greek” sounds like it hides an ultra-nationalistic message with an expansionist connotation against the FYROM. Strabo said, “Indeed, Macedonia is part of Greece”; however, one must consider that at his time Greece was only a geographical term under the Romans; it was not a country. The Hellenic Peninsula was divided into two administrative segments, one of which included Macedonia.

In my view, people who prepare advertising should take Strabo’s statement and present in a way that the word “Macedonia” does not refer to the FYROM in any way and form, but to Greece. Something like “Macedonia is already a part of Greece”; “No state with the name Macedonia”; “Macedonia IS in Greece”; something like that would be more effective and to the point. People should stop thinking emotionally and start thinking strategically. People in the advertising industry are genuinely creative.

I love Greece, I truly do, but loving something or someone does not mean I have to be blind; it means I should face reality and distinguish between what is right and wrong. I cannot restrict my mind of the truth whilst ignoring facts. It is said that love is blind; however, it does not have to be senseless.

People have the right to hold rallies and they should. In a democracy, it is the right and obligation of the citizens to petition their government. However, the same demonstrators and especially their leadership must debilitate all elements who misdirect the tide of the demonstration whether they come from the extreme right or extreme left. Leaders are responsible for anything that takes place in protests. About ten years ago, I suggested that we demonstrate before Greek diplomatic missions, not in front of foreign government buildings but I was turned down flat. Ten years later, they decided to do it, but it's too late. Even when I had suggested it, it was late; now it is much worse.

Australia, USA, and Canada are home to an extensive Greek diaspora. However, we are a diaspora divided especially on advocacy. Why is this?

We are divided because those in leadership not only undermine each other but also don’t know what they are doing. Others accept bribes from subsequent Greek governments about 25 to 35 thousand U.S. dollars monthly under the guise of promoting Greek causes or advertisement. This is true for some well-known Greek NGOs and mass media of the Greek Diaspora. Since it is an issue pertaining to all Greeks, where is the voice from key Greek American NGOs? They are silent on the matter of Macedonia because they are probably on the take.

In some cases, those who think of themselves as superior homeland patriots are in fact so irrational that they end up collaborating with the FYROM Slavs without even realising it. Some go as far as getting their supporters to troll both Greeks and Slavs online and to exchange absurd nonsense as if they were Karagiozis (Karagöz) and Hatzivatis (Hacivat). The fact is the Sultan hung them both. More recently these ‘patriots’ have even put people’s lives in danger by “outing” some of our FYROM Slav supporters in the diaspora who work for the Greek cause. These trolls consider these public outings as an “achievement.” However, it never occurred to them that the people they have outed may be providing very useful information to Greece. A nation cannot survive with such people and is doomed to fail.

How can the Greek diaspora create advocacy groups when they have such members? One does not find this kind of behavior in the FYROM Slav camp.

Ultimately, intelligent Greeks of the diaspora become non-inclined towards involvement in such destructive organizations.

How would you describe the FYROM Slav diaspora organizations and the methods they employ to get their message heard not only within their community but also in the public sphere?

From the efficiency of their work, they are very well-organized with discipline and attention directed toward their goal not at each other. Their lobby works under a strategy that employs professional experts in disciplines where the lobby needs to spread the word. Their experts are not FYROM Slavs and they often resort to proxy struggle just like the VMRO in the early 1900s.

Also, FYROM Slavs have money, and the methods they employ are put together professionally. The coordination of tactics as part of a strategic purpose is apparent. Their community takes “guidelines” from both Skopje and Ankara - Turkey is helping them a lot and supports them unquestionably. Not one of the members of the various groups would dare disobey it. When it comes to “Macedonia” they face it with religious reverence. It is exactly why the FYROM is where it is. Additionally, they don’t troll each other, nor divulge or out their sources, or attack each other, because they take the issue seriously.

Going back to the Greek diaspora, you are an advocate for the creation of a Greek lobby. Many in the diaspora already believe that there are Greek lobby groups at work to protect the interests of both the diaspora and to lobby their respective governments. What are the facts on this issue?

The myth about the Greek lobby started after the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey. As I understand it, a couple of Greek restaurant owners went to the U.S. Congress to talk to their Congressman about the invasion. As they were leaving the office, someone asked who these men were; one of the present office workers said “the Greek lobby.” More or less, it is how the myth started.

Well, if so many lobby groups existed, Greece would not have been continuously on the receiving end. Since Greece never had a lobby, most Greeks do not know what a lobby is, what it needs to operate, nor the amount of money involved. Greeks are also tribal. They do not have the national unity necessary to address domestic and national security issues. I have been attacked as a pro-Skopje Slav only because my last name is not Greek. If they take the telephone book of, say, Athens, they will be surprised how many so-called Greek names are Arabian, Persian, Turkish, Slavic, Albanian, etc. A name ending such as “-is” does not make a name Greek, by the way. A name ending in “-oğlu” which is a possessive genitive of oğul (son) cannot be purely Greek. Papazoğlu, for instance, is purely a Turkish name. The Greek word for a priest is “ἱερεύς,” not papas. Papas is remnant of Greece’s Ottoman past. In Turkish “papaz” means “Christian priest.”

Skopje has only ONE national issue, their survival as a state. They have Turkish-trained personnel on issues of lobbying and their experts listen to professional advice. In the United States, lobbyists for other powers are required to register as Foreign Agents (FARA). The President of the UMD is a designated Foreign Agent. Additionally, the Ministry of Culture of the government of the FYROM, has for 10 years now employed people full-time to work solely on articles published in Wikipedia promoting the “Macedonian Heritage” of the Slavs turned “ethnic Macedonians”.

Greece on the other hand has five national security issues; (Macedonia, Northern Epirus, Thrace, EEZ, and Aegean Air Space) and two national topics (Cyprus, and the Greek Genocide). Each one of them needs a separate lobby.

The reason why we don’t have a lobby is because the political establishment of Greece does not allow it and does everything possible to subvert, sabotage, and weaken any attempt for a valid and honest lobby. Secondly, those who want to lead a lobby do not have any idea what a real lobby entails – dreams don’t count. Lobby means M-O-N-E-Y and expertise (love for the homeland or I want to help are fine, but they do not count as expertise). Just to open its doors for example, an active lobby requires a minimum of three million U.S. dollars. The operating costs reduce as the organization depreciates its assets but salaries and other operational expenses need to be factored in. If this sum seems exorbitant, one must start working in a Cost Accounting manner and without discounting any costs.

A lobby is a fully organized operation consisting of adequately staffed and equipped teams with a single scope tasking that does not lose its peripheral vision. A team is a group whose identity reflects the consensus of its members without suppressing their individuality.

A lobby needs teams of experts, groups of professionals with expertise in the specific cause they advocate without interference or meddling in the business of other teams. The experts are dedicated to their field and they do not need to be of Greek descent. Each of the lobby teams consist of experts on specific subject matters, as geologists, national security experts with a specialty in geostrategy, experts in avionics, attorneys specializing in international law, diagnosticians, analysts, strategists, tacticians, operationalists, a lot of full-time staffers; but most of all, a lobby needs famous spokespersons in the community they operate and FUNDING.

Lobbies are connected to foundations or nonprofit public policy organizations using all forms of mass and social media and mass communication to influence a government or individual politicians. They demonstrate that the public demands a particular action. Such is the advocacy side of the lobbies that works overtly through lectures and presentations.

A real Greek lobby requires serious funding because our multiple causes have been neglected or marginalized for a long time. The number of personnel required for a lobby can be anywhere between twenty to thousands; it always depends on what the aim and objective is. A few years back, I met someone who worked for a lobby as a Human Resource Manager, but the lobby in my opinion was insignificant. Yet she still had close to 100 personnel on her payroll. Not only do we have no lobby in Washington, but we don’t have appropriate people to lead such a lobby. All those who lead numerous Greek organizations have no understanding what a true lobby is, no appropriate training, no suitable contacts, and lack leadership ability.

Lobbyists are naturally accountable to their supporters who usually remain anonymous; it is why professional lobbies work quietly and behind the scenes using covert techniques.

On the public relations side, a simple garden party with a politician today will cost a lobby about US$400-500,000 in the United States. The only Greek-American firm registered in the United States as a public relations firm is Manatos and Manatos. This firm was charging US$300,000 for garden parties about ten years ago.

Most organizations of the Greek diaspora that I’m aware of are organized under the scope of cultural, societal, or educational societies with appropriate by-laws. Their part-time leadership, boards, and sometimes paid employees, lack what it takes to undertake the duties of a lobbyist. Unfortunately, they seek ‘lobbyists’ among themselves, restricting any possible expertise in the realm of the Greek diaspora. Such mentality hinders the achievement of goals. The people who believe they currently lead a lobby are unaware that they do not have the suitable skills and information to deliver what is required. Titles, academic standing, or military and social eminence do not provide what it takes to operate and lead a political or national security lobby group, nor do they provide appropriate methods and strategies to achieve set goals.

Those involved, do not understand what a lobby is nor its definition. The most critical part of lobbying is an affinity for the cause, not lust for it. Affinity lends itself to using logic, but passion raises emotional ties which are counterproductive. What one loves to do does not mean that it is the right thing to do.

However, the problem within the Greek diaspora is more profound. When irresponsible people spread the news that they are lobbyists while they do nothing near lobbying, they raise expectations by throwing ashes into the eyes of those who hope that someone is doing something. If they were honest about it, people would not have such expectations, and they would take the issue seriously trying to do something to fill the gap instead of being complacent.

Others believe that educated people know what they are doing. To begin with, it is a faulty assumption. Let us take a teacher. There is a difference between teaching a five-year-old from teaching a 60-year-old. It is worse when a teacher of English is trying to teach English as a Second Language to foreigners. In my Turkish language class, for example, there were three engineers from Turkey teaching us Turkish as a Second Language. It was a farce.

Another way of looking at the knowledge and expertise required for an effective lobby is like this. The human body and a house use plumbing. The gastroenterologist and the plumber do similar jobs. They both take care of the plumbing, the first one of the human body and the second one of the house. The question is simple; would you visit a plumber to perform a colonoscopy?

I remember a Greek Cypriot professor of Political Science who teaches in the UK claiming that he knew a lot about Turkey. When he read my paper on the Strategic Culture of Turkey, he said: “I did not know all these details.” I am sure others would have presented a different set of details on the same subject. A lobby needs eloquent people to control the ground, spin the media, have credibility, sponsor a think-tank, neutralize the opposition without criminal means, control the web, and have access to government offices.

Most of the issues Greeks have arisen from targeting the wrong audience. They keep preaching to the choir. The message to the Greeks and non-Greeks can never be the same. They make videos in Greek explaining to the Greek audience that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Why? If the Greek audience does not know that, why are we attacking the FYROM Slavs for their historical ignorance? Why don’t the same people make a video in the language that the FYROM Slavs understand? What about in Serbian or even Russian? I am sure there are a few of Slavic descent who are willing to do it for a fee. They can even dub the voice. They can just narrate without showing their faces. It is exactly why a true lobby needs money. But who has the intelligence to think about it? According to Mr. Philip Christopher, President of the International Coordinating Committee – “Justice for Cyprus” (PSEKA), Turkey has spent US$102 million to professional lobbying firms such as Gephard, Livingston, Dole, Wexler, etc. Turks seek experts regardless of their ethnic background. Greeks look for people of Greek background. That alone limits the choices that Greeks have.

In saying this, I want to clarify that I am not a lobbyist and will never be one. I do not have what it takes to be a lobbyist. I can organize a lobby without any outside interference and I can task the necessary research with a team of true researchers; that is what I can do.

We cannot end this interview without discussing our organization. Why has the Macedonian League resonated with so many people young and old? We see it from the constant communication and the enthusiasm of our followers. We see it with foreign government officials who follow us seeking answers to the name issue. What does the Macedonian League offer that other Greek organizations don't?

We are a small group of professionals specializing in various disciplines. Since its inception, our website and social media has remained and will remain clear of sensationalist articles with unproven “facts.” We welcome articles from professionals that have something to do with Greece’s domestic and national security issues. All of them pass through the editorial board. We have several professional editors who check the accuracy and the tone of articles.

What people like is the thoughtfulness behind the maintenance of our website and our social media sites. It is why foreign governments and intelligence agencies are our followers. It is only for a mature following and for people who want to learn something. It is precisely why the Australian Institute of Macedonian Studies (AIMS) has honored us with the Research Fellowship. People have noticed that anything we do is based on facts and not rumors or hallucinations.

It also depends on your readership. We do not care about spreading nonsense to gain readership. From the beginning we decided to keep our website content of high quality caliber and we stayed focused on the national security of Greece. Quality is always better than quantity. From a personal perspective, I’ve had many opportunities in life to follow popular movements and webinars. I did not do it because of the people I had to deal with and the direction the webinars would take. My father fought against fascists, Nazis and Communists and I would not forgo his example. I would never allow myself to be used by people who seek my knowledge on the matter to promote their pre-existing beliefs or political ideology.

Marcus Templar, your closing thoughts. Seeing that the global Greek community is extremely unhappy with this ‘Agreement’, going forward, what is the best way to protect Greece’s national security interests, and undo some of the damage done so far?

Well in closing, I wish that the governments and the people of Greece had woken up in 1990 regarding the name issue. Some Greek politicians have a problem with Skopje taking the name “Macedonia” as part of its final name, but I wonder where they had been since then? The demagogues who now take advantage of the issue could easily create social and political upheavals in the country by using toxic populism.

Having said that, the following course of action will help undo damage done so far:

Firstly, people whose education, employment and expertise have nothing to do with issues of political science (foreign affairs, national security, etc.) should stay out of these issues because they are unskilled in the craft. Imagine how senseless it would be if I got involved in their profession whether they were engineers, physicians, teachers of literature, etc? Serious issues are not for kafeneion discussion and Politicial Science is not kafeneion politics.

Secondly, establish Professional Lobby groups; one to lobby Greek politicians and others to lobby governments of the countries they live in.

Thirdly, hire a legal team of experts in international law to look into protesting and consequently annulling the present Agreement between Athens and Skopje under any or all of the following:

– Ultra vires; – Misunderstanding, fraud, corruption, coercion in accordance with Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; – Contrary to peremptory norms.

Then re-negotiate an Agreement based on the findings of the Legal Group and this time assign diplomatically relevant and politically competent negotiators instead of international nation-nihilistic organizations. The name of the multi-ethnic country must be Modern Yugoslavia or Yugoslavonia. The Nationality (which is a loose term of citizenship) must follow solely the name of the country and its Slav nationals should be designated as South Slavs speaking a South Slavic, with South Slavic Heritage.

Fourthly, employ full-time multilingual personnel, dedicated to maintaining Greek-related content on Wikipedia in more languages than Greek. Never underestimate the influence of Wikipedia on people especially on children.

​

Finally, implement all the changes to the Greek constitution that were proposed in the report above.

Marcus Templar, The Macedonian League wishes to thank you for your genuine and in-depth analysis in presenting the causes and consequences of this serious national security issue.

Your academic and strategic insights are vital to the future direction and success of the Greek position on the Macedonian issue.

​--

About Marcus A. TemplarProfessor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Certified U.S. Army Instructor of Intelligence Courses, Certified Foreign Disclosures Officer, Certified Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian, SIGINT / All-Source Intelligence Analyst. He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

About the Macedonian LeagueWe are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity.

The Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Macedonian name dispute”, as this dispute is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

New York, NY | Originally published on: June 28, 2014Speech held at Pan-Macedonian Association USA event

Marcus A. Templar, National Security Advisor,Macedonian League

I am sure everyone in this room has heard of Thucydides. His analysis of the political reality behind the military operations of both camps during the Peloponnesian War made him known as the father of the Realist Political thought. The same thought that war colleges around the world teach and analyze.

Reasons behind the Athenian defeat in the Peloponnesian War

Thucydides states that the three greatest events related to the Peloponnesian War were fear, honor, and self-interest.

Regarding fear, Thucydides indicates that the growth of Athens pushed Sparta to launch the war. On the other hand, Pericles paid tribute to the dead soldiers delivering the most famous statement, “any place is the tomb of prominent men; they are honored not only by columns and inscriptions in their own land, but in foreign nations on memorials graven not in stone but in the hearts and minds of people.”[i]

As Thucydides put it, the personal self-interest and the personal gain of those in power was the reason that Athens was driven to oblivion. Other historians, orators and politicians have collaborated Thucydides assessment on issues of private gain versus public interest and political flattery versus frankness and honesty. Pericles died in 429 BC, long before the end of the Peloponnesian War, and he was fortunate enough not to see the shameful end of the Athenian hegemony.

According to Xenophon, Athens surrendered to Sparta in 404 BC, and its allies surrendered soon after. The capitulation stripped Athens of its walls, its fleet, and all of its overseas possessions. The Athenian hegemony was over. Sparta’s allies, especially the Corinthians and the Thebans, demanded that Athens should be burnt to the ground and all its citizens enslaved. However, the Spartans, magnanimous as they were, refused to destroy a city that had done a good service at a time of great danger to Greece, alluding to the Persian Wars.[ii]

In 13 paragraphs, Thucydides enumerates what caused the Athenians’ failure. Malcolm Heath has summarized the reasons behind the failure, as follows:

a) Pericles' successors pursued projects which would bring honor and self-interest to the individual if they succeeded, but which would damage the city's war-effort if they failed; they did this out of private ambition and for private gain.

b) Pericles' unique position meant that he could speak his mind to the people. His successors, because they were competing with each other for political influence, had to say what the people wanted to hear.

c) The Sicilian expedition was defeated primarily because the Athenians at home did not provide adequate support to those in the field; this was a result of private quarrels in pursuit of political pre-eminence.

d) Even after the defeat in Sicily, Athens contrived to hold out against an apparently overwhelming coalition of opposing forces, until internal dissensions brought it down; in other words, the city defeated itself.[iii]

Two and a half millennia ago, political animosities, bickering, self-promotion, and especially philarchy were the reasons behind the Athenian defeat in the Peloponnesian War. That was then. This is now. Examining the present situation is disheartening, not just in Greece, but here as well.

Copying the politicians of ancient Athens, the present politicians have brought the country to the brink of destruction not only for money, but also for personal glory. We have similar problems within the diaspora with flatterers who are concerned more about their self-promotion and their inclusion in supercilious circles both abroad and in Greece.

Greece has at least seven equally important issues of national security, national interest, and also cultural unity, i.e. Aegean, Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus, Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), Cyprus and Greek Genocide. Although not obvious, they are all vital to the existence of Greece and the Greek ethnos. They are vital in importance because they are directed toward the territorial integrity of Greece, its national security and national unity. NATO and Skopje

Regressing to NATO’s past, we deem that the reasons for its expansion were accidental owing to the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact in 1991. It was not the result of a strategic plan, but the consequence of political spontaneity. The disintegration of the Warsaw Pact compelled the Alliance to change its role. NATO has evolved from a strictly defense organization to a framework of stabilization of a suddenly unstable geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe.

The emerging European Union was in no position to offer reassuring security, and so only NATO could soundly fill the void. The Eastern Bloc countries felt induced to join an Alliance that would secure their newly freed lives from communism. There was no way of preventing the spontaneous feeling of the former Warsaw Pact countries toward the only Western institution that could simultaneously assure their security and help them democratize. However, the unintended consequence of this spontaneous surge brought about an evolution, an unplanned transition that the Alliance had never before envisioned. From a static, defensive force, it changed to an expeditionary force, which in practice means that from a defensive alliance it became a security alliance.

Before the fall of the Wall, NATO accepted countries based on their geopolitical location and their geostrategic importance. After 1989, NATO changed the rules in order to reflect the new reality. Because the membership to NATO is voluntary, before a country joins the Alliance the new members have to adhere to all democratic principles as a matter of fact, not as a matter of fiction. And although the world has changed due to a proliferation of weapons and new technologies, making possible the specter of chaos and mass destruction in any of our capitals, the fact remains that future members must abide by the rules of the membership. The present situation is very different from the situation the Alliance was facing before 1989.

The understanding of how NATO brings stability to a region is based on false premises. Yes, it does bring regional stability, but only when each of the allied countries are already domestically stable, which is the result of democracy. Establishing stability within a country that fosters bad governance or lack of democracy is not NATO’s job; it never was.

The stability that NATO provides its member states is not domestic, but regional. If NATO intervened in the domestic affairs of country members, it would be in violation of the UN Charter.[iv] That is why NATO wants the candidate members to fully adhere to the set pre-conditions and criteria before they join the Alliance. Three countries adjacent to the FYROM are members of NATO, which means that Skopje cannot claim these countries are its enemies as it is incomprehensible that Skopje would want to join an enemy camp. Consequently, Skopje is fully protected from inimical forces.

We are opposing Skopje’s membership to NATO because Skopje is domestically unstable. That is Skopje’s own fault. Skopje cannot enact dictatorial laws such as the suppression of a free press, treating people of dissenting opinions as traitors, inciting intra-ethnic hatred, openly provoking its NATO neighbors, and then expecting NATO members to put out the fire that a quasi-dictator has started for his own glorification, fueling nationalism and hatred toward the adjacent NATO member countries. Such a Cold War mentality cannot be justified under any circumstances.

NATO is proud of the democratic values of its members and respects their independence. That is why the system of consensus was implemented. It is the manifestation of equality among member states. The West, and especially NATO, must insist on democracy in the Republic of Skopje, which in turn would bring regional stability. Regional stability will not exist without democracy, lack of which is the root of the problem.

The whole idea that NATO needs the Army of the FYROM is at best ludicrous. The Republic of Skopje has an army of 8,000 men. Of them, 2,000 operate various posts in the Ministry of Defense, diplomatic and other services. Of the remaining 6,000, only 1,000 are fighting soldiers considering that for every fighting soldier five to seven other soldiers are needed to support one soldier. It is incomprehensible that NATO is so desperate for soldiers that 1,000 soldiers poorly trained and equipped would make any real difference.

Regarding the name issue, the notion that Skopje has spread around is that pressuring their country to change its name is unheard of. It is unheard of only because all governments, including the Greek, keep silent. After the collapse of the Austrian Empire on November 12, 1918, the National Assembly of Austria officially declared the “Republic of German-Austria”. Between that day and September 10, 1919, the new republic operated under the name of German Austria. The song "German Austria, you wonderful country" (Deutschösterreich, du herrliches Land) became its new national Anthem.

The final Peace Treaty of St. Germain en Layé of September 10, 1919, officially dissolved the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which, however, although the victorious allies including the United States, under article 88 of the Treaty guarantying the independence of Austria, “refused to allow Austria to use its first choice name for the new republic – German Austria. The link with Germany was not accepted by the Allies and the new state had to adopt just ‘Austria’.”[v] Thus Austria changed its name from German-Austria or Deutschösterreich to Austria or Österreich.

This fact has set the precedent for Greece's insistence on the name issue and it has a legal basis in international law. Any name of the FYROM that includes Macedonia implies future union with the region of Macedonia of Greece. Selective amnesia is not an excuse for anyone, although it is pandemic among politicians.

Need for a Professional Greek Lobby

According to reports, members of both Chambers of the U.S. Congress support Skopje’s bid to NATO membership because they have found the Greek arguments on the issue of Greece’s objection to Skopje’s membership to NATO as presented by their “Greek friends”, “incomprehensible”. As a Greek, I find this situation completely unacceptable. That and similar incidents only prove that the Greek lobby is a myth. These so-called lobbyists did not have the knowledge, or the critical thinking, to connect the name issue between Greece and the FYROM to the name issue of Austria just after the end of the First World War.

We must understand that all the organizations that pretend to be part of the Greek lobby exist to make money. And if in their pursuit of self-interest they help on the sidelines any Greek national security issues, they market their promoted achievements as if those issues were their real target. The same lobbyists are also extraneous to the real issues behind the invasion of Cyprus then and the Macedonia name dispute currently. They only see the façade of the political upheaval because seeing the substance is out of their reach and understanding.

Real lobbies keep petitioning the U.S. officials by speaking in a language that members of the U.S. government understand, i.e. regional cohesiveness, crisis management, collective defense, regional stability and cooperative security. The Greek so – called lobby keeps following the “Alexander the Great was Greek” narrative. This is not a serious counter-argument aimed at Skopje’s exclusion from the Alliance! U.S. legislators do not care about Alexander the Great. They care about the present and the future, not ancient history.

An excellent indication of what American politicians are after was demonstrated when Joe Biden, the U.S. Vice President, visited Cyprus to confer about stability, and urged a solution to the issue of the Turkish occupation of the island. He further expressed the interest of the United States on the issue of energy, calling Cyprus a “strategic partner”. “Strategic partnership” is a formal alliance between two commercial enterprises, and in this case the American Vice President himself identified the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone and, consequently, the Israeli and Greek Exclusive Economic Zone to be of national interest to the United States. Since no Greek official, nor Greek organization, have ever made the correlation of the Exclusive Economic Zones of Cyprus, Israel, Egypt and Greece to be of national interest to the United States, Mr. Biden did.

The EEZ offers Greece a wonderful opportunity to resolve its financial difficulties, and to provide revenue to modernize its economy. Yet Greece is still thinking about declaring the EEZ. This situation has been going on since 1982—over 30 years! One must know that the EEZ does not require any recognition by any government. Greece just has to declare it in accordance to the Law of the Sea Convention.

We must help the U.S. officials understand that by supporting the FYROM they do not help the people of that country, nor do they help the region’s stability. The Skopje regime has disenfranchised all ethnic groups through undemocratic means while it seeks to not only destabilize Greece and the region, but to fragment Greece, the only proven ally the United States has in the Balkan Peninsula.

Thus currently, the officials of the FYROM are getting two conflicting messages coming from the two sides of the Atlantic. One message is discouraging coming from NATO, but the other is optimistic for the Republic of Skopje. The discouraging message is that they have to change the name of the country if they want to see a NATO membership. The EU Parliament has already sided with Skopje mainly because of a pro-Turkish faction of the UK and the cooperation of some Greek elements.

The encouraging message for Skopje’s lobby and friends, which monetarily and morally Skopje supports, is making progress by pushing the concept of victimization of the FYROM by its NATO neighbors, especially by Greece. The emotional and intellectual appeal of Skopje has swayed supporters, even of the Greek caucus in the U.S. Congress.

Greece’s foreign policy is complex because of the way it was originally fashioned and subsequently has developed. The first political parties of Greece were serving interests other than Greek. The liberal English Party, the liberal French Party, and the conservative Russian Party dominated the Greek politics for almost half a century (40 years). The whole scheme of things was and is fundamentally based on whims of individual ministers and the understanding of their often impertinent advisers, who do whatever they want in accordance with their own political ideology, which is the only criterion for which they were hired for the job. In October 2010 in Brisbane, Queensland, a lawyer who had studied in Thessaloniki told me, “The Greek foreign policy lacks cohesion”.

The government of Greece, through the mouths of its ministers, has oftentimes declared that the Pan Macedonian Association cannot make Greece’s foreign policy. I would fully agree with such a statement as long as it was true. But it is not true. Greece’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs not only does not make its own foreign policy, but it has encouraged NGO’s such as ELIAMEP and KEMO to make foreign policy for Greece, which has been anything but national. Any and all solutions these NGOs have offered were and are against the national security of Greece and, of course, its territorial integrity. If those organizations can make Greece’s foreign policy, so can we!

Greek American NGOs along with some of Greece’s elected officials have already declared their support for the 1934 Comintern’s decision in favor of the existence of a [quote]“Macedonian nation” [unquote], the same Slavic nation which looks toward the incorporation of the Greek region of Macedonia under the Stalinist slogan of “eternal friendship” and “brotherly love”. According to Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezún, a former Officer of the Soviet Military Intelligence, 60 million citizens of the USSR were shot out of “brotherly love” and “eternal friendship”. We saw its implementation against East Germany in 1954, against Hungary in 1956, and against Czechoslovakia in 1968. The number of border clashes between the USSR and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are too many to enumerate. Nikita Khrushchev even mentioned that the USSR was at the brink of war with China during the Stalin era.

Just as appeasement and docility did not stop Germany’s expansionism that brought about WW II, no one should expect that appeasement and docility toward Skopje or Turkey, for that matter, would stop them from materializing their national goal.

Even if an issue at hand is of a little value by itself, or it is hard to hold, its surrender under pressure would create a reputation of admitted weakness. Appeasing one’s opponent encourages him to think that one is weak. This is how Hitler perceived the illusions of appeasement that both Edouard Daladier of France and Neville Chamberlain of the UK had afforded him. On August 22, 1939, when Hitler was about to launch his attack against Poland, he reassured his Commander-in-Chief, “Our enemies are little worms; I saw them at Munich”. This should be a wake-up call for the devotees of “brotherly love” and “internal friendship”.

Politicians often state that we should look forward, not back. We fully agree with them and it is exactly why we rely on our experience in order to protect the future of Greece. We are opposing the name Macedonia in any form for Skopje’s final name. This is looking forward. If we do not take the matter seriously, the future of Greece, and specifically of Macedonia, will be murky and perhaps even bloody. That is what we need to avoid.

The existence of our home country is in very real physical danger because of ideological experiments of its incompetent politicians. We cannot afford such experiments anymore. Since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, we have encountered Greek American public relations groups antagonizing each other and indeed actively opposing each other. These are not lobbies. Real lobbies with a common cause do not work fighting each other. When opposing groups find a common area of interest and can present a united front, they are extremely effective. Yet nothing like that happens. Instead, personal self-interest, self-promotion, name recognition, and money among other benefits have developed as the main reason for the existence of these groups. I understand that they are businesses aspiring to make money, but they should not proclaim themselves as defenders of Greece’s rights and interests. They are not.

We need to counter not just Skopje and Ankara, but anyone and everyone who wants to harm the natural and traditional friendship between Greece and the United States. We need close cooperation in order to deal with the strategic multi-faceted security challenges of the 21st century, which are more demanding than ever before.

But here is the problem. According to the U.S. State Department, Greek Americans constitute about 3 million people. What does it say to you that we are 40 years behind the Turks and 10 years behind the Skopjans, which have a negligible diaspora.

We keep reacting to trivial matters instead of acting according to a strategic, but flexible plan. For as long as we keep reacting instead of actively defending our positions, we end up playing into the hands of Ankara’s and Skopje’s proxies; and while they distract us with triviality, they are free to do their intended work without hindrance from us. This must stop!

SKOPJE HAS A DYNAMIC AND EFFECTIVE LOBBY; GREECE DOES NOT. THOSE WHO THINK THAT WE HAVE A LOBBY DO NOT KNOW WHAT A LOBBY IS.

The Greek American diaspora, and indeed Hellenism in general, is in need of a real honest to goodness reliable political pressure group that would fight and represent our views. We must launch an ACTIVE DEFENSE. We must reiterate to the U.S. officials the contribution of values that the West lives under because of Greece and the military support that Greece gave to the West since its independence. We must stress that Greece has clearly impacted NATO’s cooperative security, and we must present Greece as the pillar of military readiness. We had better be serious on our approach to issues of national security.

Letter writing by heads of organizations do not have the impact that letters written by a massive individual involvement do. Entreaty, wishful thinking, and false expectations are not part of professional lobbying. Access to U.S. government officials and members of the U.S. Congress, knowledge of the subject matter in all facets both academically and practically, money to contribute to the campaigns of politicians and anything that would give the ability to sway politicians who oppose one’s cause are part of a successful lobby.

We cannot afford to start training impertinent amateurs only because they think they have already formed a lobby. We need an advocacy group; we need a political pressure group; we need a lobby. Please, be careful. I am not advocating that we should start a lobby. We have no adequate expertise on issues of national security, geology, marine geology, ocean drilling and, of course, we have no access to the right places. What I am advocating is the initiation of a series of “Active Defense” fundraisers that will allow us to hire a lobbying firm with pertinent professionals who understand issues of national security and have access to the right people in the U.S. government.

We need professionals who totally understand the issues. I would like to see well-funded research institutes and think tanks staffed by political science professionals and cognate disciplines producing serious discussion papers, reports, articles and books and organizing conferences as part of the unified effort in the promotion of our national security issues.

We need to create academic chairs and publish serious books in telling the world about the Greek Genocide. These activities must not and should not be subject to political exploitation from the left or the right, nor should they be subject to the whim of each Greek political party in charge.

Greece needs political leadership that is visionary and defends its national interests and national security above all. Unfortunately, I do not see this emerging from the current crop of political leaders and political parties. Therefore, we, the Greek Diaspora, must shoulder the responsibility to organize ourselves in order to accomplish what we must. We can no longer rest on the achievements of our ancestors. We must add our own contributions to the world.

We must actively engage the mainstream media of the world, the social media, search engines, and other important publications. These resources of mass communication and dissemination of information have been neglected for too long. We have to change that. We have to lobby the present and all future governments of Greece demanding that they change their priorities or they had better prepare for a perilous outcome. The world lives in the year 2014 looking at the future, not in 1914 looking at 1830. The ostrich syndrome does not work anymore. We must take lessons from the past if we want to see a better future. It is either do or be the losers.

I am asking that the Pan-Macedonian Association to assume the leading role in the formation of a Pan-Hellenic Active Defense Foundation with the sole purpose of creating a political pressure group independent of any and all organizations. I am asking all Greeks and our non-Greek friends, regardless of the country of residence, regardless of political persuasion, whether business people, financiers, journalists, scientists, and others with pertinent expertise, to come together in support of such an effort. Jews and Armenians have an excellent lobbying arm, which we could learn something from.

We lack a flexible, realistic and implementable long-term plan prepared in a manner that makes sense. We need a plan that is the result of a collaborative effort, not just the efforts of one person or a small group of people. We are in need of a plan that is part of a continuous, frequently reviewed and updated process. It should directly involve everyone accountable for implementing it. The plan should also involve everyone in the organization at some stage, either directly or indirectly. The purpose of involvement is a way to secure a deep understanding and commitment. We need different means of communication, not only among ourselves, but also with the people whom we want to influence.

The Pan-Macedonian Association necessitates access to an online advocacy program such as Capwiz or Nationbuilder, or something similar in order to meet the 21st century needs. As part of our needs, a broader participation of all Greeks is our obligation. We must bring together all disenfranchised Greeks, especially the Youth, using electronically induced membership and electronically connected teams through social media or through instant messaging services that provide text, voice, and image communication in a friend-to-friend context such as Skype,Google Talk, Face Time, Viber, etc. Planning requires people who are more writers and coordinators, not a know-all, end-all of the effort. In order to have a successful operation, a team needs planning to succeed. Planning cannot be done by just one person.

This plan should be oriented toward the younger generations, which expect our guidance, not our control. We must engage our younger members to navigate the Pan-Macedonian Association to a future that makes sense to them and responds to the present and the future needs of our cause. Instead of telling them what to do, we had better listen to them and guide them when they ask for help. I hope the leadership of the Pan- Macedonian Association will initiate such an endeavor.

Finishing, I want to leave you with one more thought regarding what Greece can do in order to neutralize a few of its opponents.

A Possible Economic Project

Clausewitz considered war to be a political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of politics, by other means. Although this is still true, it is not anymore absolute. Today we must redefine “war”, because it is not always an instrument of political prevalence by violent means. It can also mean prevalence by peaceful means such as world markets, economic growth, renewable resources, and progressive innovations. The series of the means that Clausewitz implicitly cited are resources that promote markets, markets that bring growth, growth that generates money, money that stimulates infrastructure, infrastructure that builds stability and stability that fosters security; but all of them necessitate democracy and political will.

These measures bring the necessary funds into the country along with the proper political will to enact and enforce robust legal rules that promote domestic stability. They are all the foundation of a solid national security with high morale and pride for one’s country, or patriotism. A country that is built on such concrete grounds would not have a problem in its military sector. Politicians must understand the link between the military and the market because the peaceful economic growth converts into a sound national security structure in a military sense.

So, with these things in mind, let me leave you with a thought. We all know the importance of the Exclusive Economic Zone in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. What if we do something that would accentuate the importance of the region? Just imagine the potential of Thessaloniki if the appropriate authority in Greece proposes a plan for a canal [=διώρυγα] from Thessaloniki to the Danube. If the FYROM does not go along with it, then have the governments of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Germany explain a few things to Skopje. Even Kosovo, Romania and all the countries of the Black Sea, without exception, could benefit from such a canal. I want to see that Greece initiates such works! Technology exists and the tangible and intangible benefits of such a project outweigh the costs over a forward period with great potential financial return to the countries involved.

I am suggesting a canal similar to the Erie Canal that has united the Lake Erie with New York City. Think of the impact that such a canal would have to commerce, business, and finances in the region, especially if one adds the sea thoroughfare. Ladies and gentlemen,

We must modify the meaning of the triptych “fear, honor, and self-interest” not just to Greece’s favor, but also to the region. We need to eliminate the fear from Greece’s neighbors, bring back the honor of our ancestors, and work together to secure Greece’s interests through democracy, growth and stability.

This is how I see it; if you agree, then it’s up to you to do something.

Thank you,

-----

Remark: If there is political will, there can be at least three canals [διώρυγες] that could facilitate the transportation of merchandise from one place to another.1. One from the Gulf of Strymon to the Gulf of Thermai.2. One from the Gulf of Thermai to FYROM to Serbia to Danube3. One from the Gulf of Strymon through Bulgaria to Danube. There is always the possibility of one more canal from Alexandroupolis to Svilengrad to Varna.One must always consider issues of environment such as wetlands.

Misirkov’s extensive biography provides a view as the author understood the overall political reality in Europe and particularly in the Balkan Peninsula during his time. It is also necessary for the reader to bear in mind the alongside creeping progress of the Pan-Slavic movement and the awakening of the Slavdom, i.e., regions of Slavic linguistic and cultural traditions who lived in Central, Eastern and Southeast Europe outside of the Russian boundaries.

The Roman Catholic Church started and sanctioned the Pan-Slavic movement as it brokered the marriage of Sophia Paleologue to Ivan III in 1472, supporting the theories of Vinko Pribojević, and Mauro Orbini, and authorized the voyages of Juraj Križanić to Russia silently endorsing his actions. Also, Russia’s foreign policy on the Balkans, which Peter the Great had established, continued uninterrupted and contributed to Misirkov’s life of movement or resettlement from one political jurisdiction to another. It is worth noting that while in Belgrade attending the teacher’s academy, Misirkov befriended some future members of the VMRO as Petar Pop-Parsov, Dame Gruev.

Misirkov

Misirkov was born in the town of Aghoi Apostoloi or Holy Apostles of the Pella Prefecture, Macedonia, Greece on November 18, 1874. The town of Aghoi Apostoloi is adjacent to the ancient Capital of Macedonia, Pella. Not only he attended the Greek elementary school of his village under the Ottoman rule, but also he could physically see the ruins of the ancient city. He knew the history of Macedonia much better than the modern Slav inhabitants of the FYROM and its diaspora do today. He could read the inscriptions chiseled on the stones and the language of the ancient population of Macedonia, which was Greek. It is why Misirkov never invoked the ancient Macedonians as his ancestors, but he always referred to himself and his compatriots as Macedonian Slavs.

The only person with the name Alexander whom Misirkov mentioned is Alexander Obrenović (1876-1903), who became king of Serbia at the age of 13 and assassinated at the age of 26.

As a charter member of the “Macedonian People’s Science and Technology Association, ‘Sveti Kliment’ ” (Saint Clement) along with the Chuparov brothers from Papradishte (Veles), Misirkov published the Македонский голос (Macedonian Voice) in Russian. Later the society changed its name to “Macedonian Slav Literary Society, Sveti Kliment.” It is notable that although they could name the Association after St. Cyril, they preferred to recognize Saint Kliment, Saint Cyril’s disciple one of their own who became the first Bulgarian Bishop. The leadership of the association knew that Saint Cyril was Greek. The fact is that Misirkov never mentioned anything that would indicate even remotely the appropriation of Greek history. The adjective “Macedonian” was regional according to Misirkov (1974, 159). He used the term Macedonian as the Greeks use it today, a regional connotation.

Misirkov’s book

The language Misirkov used in his book was not the Central Slavic dialect of Bitola – Prilep as he had suggested that should become the literary language of the Macedonian state he had proposed, but instead, he used the vernacular Bulgarians spoke in his vicinity at that time. The dialect maintained archaisms of the literary standard of the southern dialect of the Old Church Slavonic language from which Bulgarian dialects evolved.

The current region of Macedonia is a product of political alchemy that started in the mid-1800s and continued in 1940s. Present geographic Macedonia is far more extensive than the great kingdom of Macedonia. Only a tiny part of their legendary kingdom fell within Serbia and Bulgaria because of the 1878 Conference of Berlin that caused the quarrel between those two countries. The Conference had deprived Serbia of enlarging west and Bulgaria from expanding south and west. While Serbia envisioned her presence south, Bulgaria moved her Capital from Turnovo to Sofia in the hope that one day she would gain the lands that the Conference had taken away. Their rivalry and their war of 1885 turned the lands of ancient Dardania and Paeonia into Macedonia by 1900 (Novaković 1906).

Misirkov was an intellectual but also an indecisive ideologue who wrote expressed his emotions over pragmatism, an individual who kept changing his ethnic allegiance while maintaining his loyalty to the region of Macedonia. By that, I mean that although Misirkov vacillated from being a Bulgarian of Macedonia or a Macedonian Slav who despised the Bulgarians of the Principality, while he remained a provincial Macedonian.

Lazar Koliševski, a prominent communist politician of Marxist Yugoslavia, explained, “The book appeared at the end of that year, but because of the intervention by greater-Bulgarian circles in Sofia the entire edition was destroyed at the printing works. Only very few copies remained. After that Misirkov had to leave Sofia and went to Russia for the third time” (Kolishevski 1980, 236).

To Misirkov, Macedonian people were all residents of Macedonia irrespective of their ethnic background. When he was referring to his ethnicity the term he used was Macedonian Slavs. His exact thoughts are capsulated in the sentence, “The emergence of the Macedonians as a separate Slav people is a perfectly normal historical process which is quite in keeping with the process by which the Bulgarian, Croatian and Serbian peoples emerged from the South Slav group.”

But because Misirkov was cognizant that the Macedonian people transcended ethnicities, and simultaneously his people had no ethnic name, he further wrote,Is it possible now for the national unification of the Macedonians, when in Macedonia there are a lot, not just one ethnicity, and when there is no single Macedonian Slav nation?[i]

As for the nameless Slavs of the Balkans, Misirkov suggests the following. “And so, one people [narod or ethnic group] can be without an ethnic name for a long time if there is no other ethnic group nearby and if there is no need for that [nameless] ethnic group to make a distinction using a specific ethnic name. That means that an ethnic group does not choose a name for itself, but the neighbouring ethnic groups make up a name for it, and the [nameless] ethnic group adopts it. It is the most common and very natural thing that one’s ethnic name first occurs in one of its neighbouring ethnic groups. So, the neighbouring ethnic groups are related like a godchild and a godfather”.

Misirkov identified himself and his Slav compatriots as being South Slavs, i.e., descendants of the original invading the region nine Slavic tribes.

Misirkov spoke like a man who knew about the Comintern and its 1924 Resolution on Macedonia and Thrace because he said to his closest and friends before he died, "I regret that I did not foresee federalism."

Also from other essays, Misirkov had published, e.g., The Macedonian Culture (1924), it is noteworthy that he was familiar with the work of Ziya Gökalp. While in On Macedonian Matters Misirkov refers to Bulgarians as Mongols, in The Macedonian Culture he refers to “Turanian Bulgarians,” an association of Bulgarians to the Turks brought up by Gökalp in Thessaloniki in 1911. The fact is that not one Turkic tribe is Turanian. The story of Turan is Persian and refers to the son of a Persian king, and has nothing to do with Turks (Templar, November 15, 2015).

I have examined the two existing versions of the book that claim to be copies of the original text: a) On Macedonian Matters, Sofia, Printing House "Liberal Club," 1903 and b) On Macedonian Matters, State Book Publishing House, 1946. I compared both to the English translation of the book contingent upon the copy from Skopje (On Macedonian Matters, 1974).[ii]

How original is it?

The most striking evidence of inconsistency regarding Misirkov’s book is the conflict between the name of the Capital of Imperial Russia, Petrograd and the time of publication, 1903. The toponym Petrograd that appears in Misirkov’s book is something I have kept to myself since I read the book many years ago. It is interesting that some new publications of the same book have attempted to “correct” the older edition by replacing Petrograd with Saint Petersburg; however, they cannot reverse facts.

The Capital of Imperial Russia was officially named Saint Petersburg on May 27, 1703. It kept the name until August 18, 1914, one day after Russia had declared war against Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Czar changed the name of his Capital to Petrograd believing that the new name was more Slavicized than the previous German sounding name. About ten years later, as consequence of the Russian Revolution and Lenin’s death, the city was renamed Leningrad on January 26, 1924.

How was it possible for Misirkov to have published a book in 1903 anticipating the toponym of the Russian Capital that would appear 11 years later between August 18, 1914, and January 26, 1924?

The answer to the above question comes to us from the forward of the Skopje edition of the “original” Book. The forward of the 1946 edition published in Skopje starts with a very interesting heading, foreword to the 2nd Edition, which points to a modified version that appeared 43 years after the first one. The author of the introduction does not explain who and when had redacted the Second Edition of the book and neither he explains who took care of it before it ended up at the Skopje City Library titled “Brothers Miladinov” (Библиотека Браќа Миладиновци). However, consistent with the note by the Journal for Slavonic Philology of the Serbian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Serbian Language, the person who technically changed the orthography was Bozhidar (Dare) Dzhambaz (Божидар (Даре) Џамбаз).[iii] He also wrote the forward of the book reflecting his contemporary political views with tainted rationalizations.

Misirkov had probably redacted and published the version of the book available today during Stamboliski’s government (Agrarian National Union, 1919-1923) in Sofia, an ally of the Bulgarian communists. Aleksandar Stamboliski had officially declared in the Bulgarian Parliament that he was “neither a Bulgarian nor a Serb,” but a South Slav or “Yugoslav,” as a declaration of his beliefs for a Balkan Federation. The other possibility is that Misirkov had republished the book in either Kishinev, Bessarabia (Moldova) or Odessa, Ukraine between 1918 and 1923.

Although not a linguist, Misirkov had created his phonetic soft sign, a simple ‘ (apostrophe) that he added next to letters Г, К, Л, Н, instead of the traditional Ь. Also, he employed the use of i instead of І or Ї. The apostrophe was postpositional to particular Cyrillic letters (Г, К) converting them to Г’, K’ that arguably gave rise to new letters Ѓ, Ќ. Regarding the Л’, Н’ for some reason ignored the already existing in the Serbian alphabet thanks to Vuk Stefanović-Karadžić’s innovation (Л + Ь = ЛЬ => Љ and Н+ Ь = НЬ => Њ).

That could have something to do with the dubious change of the letter “i” of the original book to the letter j in the version of Skopje, i.e., from известiа to известjа or “notice, notification, report.”

Although both versions claim to be copies of the original, a trained eye can detect alphabetical discrepancies in the content of both texts. Thus immediately one wonders, how many unique copies exist out there? For instance, the spelling of the Bulgarian version seems genuine as compared to the Skopjan version since the redactor admitted his action. However, while the Bulgarian edition claims that the “Liberal Club” published the book in 1903, textually, it agrees with the Skopje version released in 1946 while both versions bear same toponymic inconsistencies.

Misirkov wrote the preface of his book just before he published the original version and Blagoja Korubin contributed to Misirkov’s biographical summary at the end of the English translation. One gathers that Misirkov composed the first three chapters from a collection of shorter essays that he had previously written and read in the “Macedonian Slav Literary Society, Sveti Kliment” in Saint Petersburg, the Capital of Imperial Russia. He recited the three chapters at the Sveti Kilment society between August and November 1903.

The final version of the essays, which constitute the first three chapters of the book, are:

1. What we have already done and what we ought to do in the Future?2. Is there a need for Macedonian national scientific and literary societies?3. National separatism – the basis on which we have been developing and on which we shall continue to develop?

Before he sent the above essays to Sofia for publication, Misirkov added the following articles, which he placed as the last two chapters in the book.

4. Can Macedonia turn itself into a separate ethnographic and political unit? Has it already done so? Is it doing so now?5. A few words on the Macedonian literary language.

Misirkov arranged and managed to send the manuscript to Bulgaria, through his revolutionary socialist, i.e., communist friends in Sofia had the book published by the Printing House “Liberal Club” in 1903.

The Translation of the book into English.

In the 1800s, Macedonia was changing to the direction Bulgarians had resented. Rayko Ivanov Zhinzifov (Райко Иванов Жинзифов), a Bulgarian educator, and poet from Veles published his essay "Prospect" in the Russian journal "Brotherly Labor," Moscow, 1862, p. 38-58. He stated in a regretful tone in his essay, "In villages and cities, Bulgarian youths are using more “Greekisms” on a daily basis as "kalimera” (good morning) and "kalispera" (good evening).” Zhinzifov wrote his observations 31 years before the establishment of the VMRO, an organization that through extortion, murder, and coercive persuasion intended to establish its government over Macedonia by the 1934 Resolution of the Comintern.

Being fair to Alan McConnell, the Australian translator, even if he had translated the text very faithfully aiming at the spirit rather than the letter of the version the redacting committee of the book had a lot to do with the political direction of the text. It is evident that the translation into English is a product of an ideological redaction that confirmed the bias of the institution.

Let us see a couple of the issues that the translation addresses as the translator wished to express his political beliefs and financial interests. It makes a significant difference in understanding the name issue and the behavior exerted by the FYROM nationalists.

The English version translates the word tatkoina (modern ascription: tatkovina) as a country. The word country is more of an independent state under a fully functioning government with internationally recognized boundaries. In 1903, Macedonia was not a state, but part of the Ottoman Empire. Considering that at the time, Macedonia was under Turkish rule until 1912, the definition tatkoina that Misirkov implied was either birthplace or native land.

Another word is the noun narod. The English version translates the word narod as a nation. Not only narod does not mean a nation, but also the word nation has a dual sense: a) an ethnic group and b) a state. Nevertheless, narod implies folk, society, who are not necessarily related. Misirkov as an initiated communist, he followed the party line, which he deemed emblematic.

Conversely, natsiya or a nation in the communist sense is a historical community of people that come into existence with the formation of a common territory, common economic ties, a standard literary language, a general character, and specific cultural features that constitute its identifying traits. A nation as a community of descent is a tribe (Stalin 1934, 8; Stalin 1975, 11; Lenin 2002, 197). In the specific case of Macedonia, the expression Macedonian people or makedonski narod also covers the non-Slavic populations inhabiting Macedonia, i.e., Greeks, Albanians, Turks, Jews, Roma, etc.” (Hristo Andonov-Poljanski 1981, v. 2, 181).

Misirkov used националност or “nationality” to refer to “ethnicity,” which, by the way, appears only four times in his book. A related word is the adjective народен, народна, народно as in народнапесна or folk song. The English translation of the book has the adjective as connoting national. Such a translation disregards the fact that most often songs and dances are regional as it is the food, especially in a mixed society of Misirkov’s Macedonia. I would have translated narodna as folk,people’s an adjective with plural meaning as in the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia or Federativna narodna republika Jugoslavija. The Slovenian title of the same was Federativna ljudska republika Jugoslavija, which makes clearer as it translates the word narodna to ljudska an adjective of the noun in plural ljudi or људи or люди or “people.”

Toward the end of page 120 of the English version, Misirkov referred to the Macedonian “job.” The Macedonian “job” was a Bulgarian attempt to bulgarize all Christian Macedonians, their ethnicity notwithstanding. Anastas Yankov, a communist Bulgarian colonel of volunteers from the village of Vassileiada (Zagorichani), led a battalion strength band aiming at the revolt of the people of the region of Kastoria in 1902. He issued a proclamation calling ALL Macedonians regardless of their ethnic origin “historical heirs” of the great glory of Macedonia, naming “the great Alexander of Macedon,” “the brave king Samuel,” and “the marvelous Marko Kralyevich.” He further stated that all the above had Macedonian blood flown in their veins mixing all regional Macedonians as if they were of one tribe (Ristovski 1999, 207). Yankov and other Bulgarians had asserted that Alexander the Great and Aristotle were Bulgarians (Brailsford 1906, 103, 105, 121, 122; Allen Upward 1908, 163). “He [Yankov] died as the leader of a detachment in engagement with the Turkish army in 1906 at the village of Vlakhi”, Melnik, Bulgarian region of Pirin (Khirurgia, Vol XV, No 12, Sofia, 1962, pages 1118-1122 in JPRS: -18,462-, 1963, 1)[iv].

Misirkov also clarified that the slogan “Macedonia for the Macedonians” referred to all inhabitants of Macedonia, not just the Slavs of Macedonia. While mentioning the Committee, i.e., VMRO, Misirkov stated, “The revolution must be the work of all Macedonians or at least the majority of them so that it can be identified as a popular revolution. All ethnicities should be represented in the committee itself or at least most of the ethnicities. The intelligentsia of these ethnicities needs to assist each other while each of them should undertake to popularize the idea to their people (Misirkov 1946, 7- translation is mine).

In its present form, Misirkov’s book is not the original edition nor is it immaculate of political innuendos. Nevertheless, Misirkov does often stress the fact that Macedonians were not just the Slavs of Macedonia as Skopje propagates, but all inhabitants of the then Ottoman region as both resolutions of the Comintern of 1924 and 1934 promoted.

The text of the book has been altered, and its interpretation is guided to the point that it misguides the reader away from the intended disposition of the author; to what degree the redaction transpired is unknown. We can only speculate that the original text was more radical than the present version; perhaps the tone was too sharp for the government of the Principality of Bulgaria in 1903. Regardless of the apparent discrepancies, both versions (Skopje and Sofia) are similar indicating that they are products of the same second edition.

Conclusion

One could use On Macedonian Matters as a historically and politically useful book, at least as intended by the author’s point of view. Unfortunately, the Slavs of Skopje use the same book to rationalize their nationalistic bias by twisting words, disregarding common sense and willfully reversing distasteful to them passages. Such a selective and discriminating discernment leads to statements and actions of denigration of Greece and her symbols.

In 1990, Greece informed Slobodan Milošević that the republic of Skopje should stay independent if its people wished it. In 2001, the FYROM reached dismemberment to the point that a Parliamentary Slavic delegation visiting Athens asked to unite politically with Greece in a confederation; it was the only viable solution, still is, in case the FYROM disintegrated. Greece kept the FYROM together. On the business and finance side of national security, about 280 Greek businesses operate in the FYROM employing thousands of people, pay taxes, and stabilize the FYROM economy. Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou said “an international peacekeeping force was needed… We have an immediate interest. There are many Greek companies that have invested substantial funds in this country" (CNN.COM/World; Leaders gather for Macedonia[sic] talks, June 13, 2001).

Disparaging the reality that the FYROM exists and survives, because of Greece and Greeks, is unwise. It indicates weak intellect and absent acumen; in plain language, it suggests a brain of an 11-year-old going down to 5-year-old.

[iv]JPRS: The United States Joint Publications Research Service is a government agency which translates foreign language books, newspapers, journals, unclassified foreign documents and research reports. Approximately 80% of the documents translated are serial publications. JPRS is the largest single producer of English language translations in the world. More than 80,000 reports have been issued since 1957, and currently JPRS produces over 300,000 pages of translations per year. In its early years JPRS concentrated heavily on scientific and technical material from communist countries. Gradually coverage has broadened to include more non-scientific materials (See: Open Source Enterprise (OSE).

About Marcus A. TemplarProfessor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Certified U.S. Army Instructor of Intelligence Courses, Certified Foreign Disclosures Officer, Certified Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian, SIGINT / All-Source Intelligence Analyst. He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

About the Macedonian LeagueWe are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity.

The Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Macedonian name dispute”, as this dispute is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

​Certain fallacies are circulating among the diaspora of the FYROM especially since their home country’s independence on September 8, 1991.

​The present paper disputes all known fallacies by presenting facts.

Fallacy #1

The inhabitants of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (The FYROM) are ethnic Macedonians, direct descendants of, or related to the ancient Macedonians.

Fact #1

The inhabitants of The FYROM are mostly Slavs, Bulgarians, and Albanians. They have nothing in common with the ancient Macedonians.

Dr. Eugene Borza, a historian of Classics in his academic paper "Macedonia Redux," in The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Frances B. Titchener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999, 255, has stated on the matter,

“If the claim is based on ethnicity, it is an issue of different order. Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians[sic], cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions – mostly in the United States, Canada, and Australia – even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity… Politics in the Balkans transcends historical and biological truths”.

The assumption of Slavs of ethnic consanguinity between them and the ancient Macedonians has been refuted long ago by testimonies of The FYROM’s officials:

a. The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov declared, “We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century … we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians” (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

b. Also, Mr. Gligorov proclaimed, ”We are Macedonians, but we are Macedonian Slavs. That’s who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century” (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).

c. On 22 January 1999, Ambassador of the FYROM to the USA, Ljubica Achevska gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. In answering questions at the end of her remarks, Mrs. Acevshka articulated, “We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great … Greece is Macedonia’s[sic] second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nimetz.” In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that “we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”

d. On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM’S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, “We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.” He also commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country.”

e. Moreover, the Foreign Minister of the FYROM, Slobodan Casule, in an interview to Utrinski Vesnik of Skopje on December 29, 2001, said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Solomon Pasi, that they “belong to the same Slav people.”

Fallacy #2

The Macedonian Greeks are of the same ethnic group as the “Macedonians” of The FYROM.

Fact #2

The Macedonian Greeks are NOT of the same ethnic group as the "Macedonian" Slavs of The FYROM. The Macedonian Greeks are just that, Greeks who live in or originate from the region of Macedonia. They are the only people that by heritage, can be called Macedonians. Macedonian ethnicity did not and does not exist. The term “Macedonian” is not ethnic, but regional; even Misirkov agreed to it (Misirkov, Skopje, 1970, 159).

Fallacy #3

Ancient Macedonians were a tribe similar to the Greeks, but not Greek themselves.

Fact #3

Ancient Macedonians were one of more than the 230 Hellenic tribes, sub-tribes, and families of the Hellenic Nation that spoke more than 200 dialects. For more information see Herodotus, Thucydides, Titus Livius, Strabo, Nevi’im, Ketuvim, Apocrypha (Maccabees I, 1-2). It was not until 1945 that the Slavs have challenged their Hellenism for expansionistic reasons.

Fallacy #4

Ancient Greece was a country, a legal entity, as we understand it today.

Fact #4

No. In ancient times Greece was not a country. Hellas (Greece) was first recognized as a nation state or legal entity as we understand it today in 1830. From the beginning until that time, the term Hellas was only a regional term or an administrative area whose borders were changing depending on the needs of the Roman, Byzantine, or Ottoman Empires.

Fallacy #5

There was one ancient Greek language, and the ancient Macedonians spoke Macedonian, not Greek.

Fact #5

Linguistically, there is no real distinction between a dialect and a language without a specific factor. People usually consider the political factor to determine whether a particular kind of speech is a language or a dialect. “Politically speaking, one might answer that a language is what is officially accepted as the national form of speech, a dialect what does not have such an acceptance” (Pei 1966, 46). The name of the language of a country depends on the name that the government of a state calls it. Many countries do not include provisions in their Constitutions naming specifically an official language, e.g., Greece, USA.

Since the Pan-Hellenic area consisted of many small city-states or tribal states one might argue (Attica, Lacedaemon, Corinth, etc.), and more important states (Molossia, Thesprotia, Macedonia, Acarnania, Aetolia, etc.). It was common knowledge at the time that the people of all those states used different speech, but it was a matter of what presently we call dialects of the same language, i.e., Hellenic or Greek. The most advanced of all Hellenic dialects was the dialect of Attica (Athens) or Attic. When people state “ancient Greek language” they mean the Attic dialect and any comparison of the Macedonian dialect to ancient Greek is a comparison to the Attic dialect. The difference between Macedonian and Attic was like the difference between Low and High German. Nobody doubts that both are Germanic languages, although they differ from one another. Another excellent example of a multi-dialectal linguistic regime is present-day Italy. The official language of Italy is the Florentine, but ordinary people still speak their dialects. Two people from different areas of Italy cannot communicate if both speak their particular dialect, and yet they both speak Italian. Why should the Hellenic language be treated differently?

At that time, Greeks spoke more than 200 Hellenic dialects or languages, as the ancient Greeks used to call them. Some of the well-known idioms were Ionic, Attic, Doric, Aeolic, Cypriot, Arcadic, Aetolia, Acarnanian, Macedonian and Locrian. Moreover, we know that the Romans considered the Macedonians as Hellenic speaking peoples. Livy wrote, “…The Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time …” (Livy, History of Rome, b. XXXI par. XXIX). The Aetolians and Acarnanians were Hellenic tribes. On another occasion, Livy writes “…[General Paulus] took his official seat surrounded by the whole crowd of Macedonians … his announcement was translated into Greek and repeated by Gnaeus Octavius, the praetor…”. If the crowd of Macedonians was not Greek-speaking, the Romans would not translate Paulus’ speech into Greek, but into the native tongue so that people would understand (Livy, History of Rome, b. XLV, para XXIX).

The Macedonian dialect was an Aeolic dialect of the Western Greek language group (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 193). All those dialects differ from each other, but never in a way could that one person not understand the other. The Military Yugoslavian Encyclopedia of the 1974 edition (Letter M, page 219), a very anti-Hellenic biased publication, states, “… u doba rimske invazije, njihov jezik bio grčki, ali se dva veka ranije dosta razlikovao od njega, mada ne toliko da se ta dva naroda nisu mogla sporazumevati.” (… at the time of the Roman invasion, their language was Hellenic, but two centuries before it was different enough, but not as much as the two peoples could not understand one another). What the encyclopedia did not explain is that currently, the Greek language did not exist. Furthermore, the Greek the reference insinuates is the Attic dialect. Thus, in fact, the comparison was not between the Macedonian and the Greek, but between the Macedonian Aeolic based with the Attic, a daughter so to speak of Ionic dialect.

After the death of Alexander the Great, the situation changed in the vast empire into a new reality. Ptolemy II, Philadelphos (308-246 BC) the Pharaoh (king) of Egypt realized that the physical unification of the Greeks and the almost limitless expansion of the Empire required the standardization of codification of the already widely used common language or Koinē. Greek was already the lingua franca of the vast Hellenistic world in all four kingdoms of the Diadochi (Alexander’s Successors). It was already spoken, but neither an official alphabet nor grammar had yet been devised.

Alexandria, Egypt was already the Cultural Center of the Empire in about 280 BC. Ptolemy II assigned Aristeas, an Athenian scholar, to create the grammar of the new language, one that not only all Greeks but all inhabitants of the Empire would be able to speak. Thus, Aristeas used the Attic dialect as the basis for the new language. Aristeas and the scholars who were assisting him eliminated the Attic idiosyncrasies and added words as well as grammatical and syntactical rules mainly from the Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic dialects. So, they standardized the Hellenic language, called Koine or Common.

The language was far from perfect. Non-Greeks encountered difficulties reading it since there was no way to separate words, sentences, and paragraphs. Also, they were unable to express their feelings and the right intonation. During that time, Greek was a melodic language, even more, melodic than Italian is today.

The system of paragraphs, sentences, and punctuation were the result of continuous improvement and enhancement of the language with the contribution of many Greek scholars from all over the World.

There were a few alphabets employed by various Hellenic cities or states, and these alphabets included letters specific to the sounds of their particular dialect. There were two main categories, the Eastern and the Western alphabets. The first official alphabet omitted all letters not in use any longer ( Ϡ sampi, Ϙ qoppa, H heta (served as consonantal function and a letter), Ϻ san, Ϝ digamma also known as a stigma in Greek numbering) and it presented a 24-letter alphabet for the new Koinē language. However, the inclusion and use of small letters took place over a period of many centuries after the standardization of the Koinē.

After the new language was completed and codified, the Jews of Egypt felt that it was an opportunity for them to translate their sacred books into Greek since it was the language that the Jews of Diaspora spoke. So, on the island of Pharos, by Alexandria’s seaport, 72 Jewish rabbis were secluded and isolated as they translated their sacred books (Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim, etc.) from Aramaic and Hebrew to the Koinē Greek, the newly created language. It is known as the Septuagint translation. The Koinē evolved, and in about two to three centuries it became the language that Biblical scholars call Biblical Greek. In fact, only those who have studied the Attic dialect can understand the difference between the Septuagint Greek and the Greek of the New Testament. It happened about 265 BC.

Although the Koinē was officially in use, ordinary folk, in general, continued to speak their dialect, and here and there one can sense the insertion of elements of the Attic dialect in various documents such as the New Testament. The Gospel according to St. John and the Revelation are written in perfect Attic. The other three Synoptic Gospels were written in Koinē with the insertion of some Semitic grammatical concepts (i.e., the Hebrew genitive) and invented words (i.e., epiousios).

The outcome is that today in Greece there are many variations in speech; of course not to the point of people not understanding each other, but still, there is a divergence in the Greek spoken tongue. Today the Hellenic language accepts only one dialect, the Tsakonian, which is a direct development of the ancient Doric dialect of Sparta. The Demotic is a development of mostly the Doric sound system, whereas the Katharevousa is a made-up language based on the Classical Attic. Presently, the speech in various areas of Greece somehow differs from each other, and sometimes an untrained ear might have difficulty understanding the local speech. Pontic and Cypriot Greek are excellent examples of such cases to the unacquainted listener. Tsakonian dialect, the descendant of the Spartan Doric, is almost impossible to understand if one is not familiar with it. It is the only dialect accepted by the Academy of Athens.

Over the years, Macedonia had several names. At first, the Macedonians gave the land the name, Emathia, after their leader Emathion. It derives from the word amathos, amathoeis meaning sand or sandy. From now on, all of its appellations are Greek. Later it was called Maketia or Makessa and finally Makedonia (Macedonia). The latter names are derived from the Doric/Aeolic word “makos, (in Attic “mēkos) meaning length (see Homer, Odyssey, VII, 106), thus Makednos means long or tall, but also a highlander or mountaineer. (Cf. Orestae, Hellenes).

In Opis, during the mutiny of the Macedonian Army, Alexander the Great spoke to the whole Macedonian Army addressing them in Greek (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 9,10). The Macedonian soldiers listened to him, and they were dumbfounded by what they heard from their Commander-in-Chief. They were upset. Immediately after Alexander left for the Palace, they demanded that Alexander allow them to enter the palace so that they could talk to him.

When this was reported to Alexander, he quickly came out and saw their restrained disposition; he heard the majority of his soldiers crying and lamenting, and was moved to tears. He came forward to speak, but they remained there imploring him. One of them, named Callines, whose age and command of the Companion cavalry made him preeminent expressed as follows, “Sire, what grieves the Macedonians is that you have already made some Persians your ‘kinsmen’, and the Persians are called ‘kinsmen’ of Alexander and are allowed to kiss you, while not one of the Macedonians has been granted this honor” (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 8-11).

The previous story reveals that the Macedonians were speaking Greek since they could understand their leader. There were thousands of them, not just some selected few who happened to speak Greek. It would be unrealistic for Alexander the Great to talk to them in a language they supposedly did not speak. It would be impossible to believe that the Macedonian soldiers were emotionally moved to the point that all of them were lamenting after listening to a language they did not understand. There is no way for the Macedonians to have taken a crash course in Greek in 20 minutes so that they would be able to understand the speech simultaneously as Alexander was delivering it.

Furthermore, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the “kausia” (καυσία) (Polybius IV 4,5; Eustathius 1398; Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII 22; cf. Sturz, Macedonian Dialect, 41) from the Greek word for heat that separated them from the rest of the Greeks. That is why the Persians called them “yauna takabara,” which meant “Greeks wearing the hat.” The Macedonian hat was very distinctive from the hats of the other Greeks, but the Persians did not distinguish the Macedonians because the Macedonian speech was also Greek (Hammond, The Macedonian State p. 13 cf. J.M. Balcer, Historia, 37 [1988] 7).

“On the mountainsides of the Himalayas and the Indian Caucasus and under Pakistani and Afghanistan jurisdiction lives a tribe whose people call themselves Kalash. They claim to be the descendants of Alexander the Great’s soldiers who for various reasons were left behind in the depths of Asia and could not follow the Great General in his new conquests. Having no contact with the outside world for almost 23 centuries, they are entirely different from any other neighboring nations.

Light-complexioned, and blue-eyed in the midst of dark-skinned neighbors, their language, even though it has been affected and influenced by the many Muslims of nations speaking different languages that surround the Kalash tribe, still incorporates vocabulary and has many elements of the ancient Greek language. They greet their visitors with “ispanta” from the Greek verb “ασπάζομαι” (greetings) and they warn them about “heman” from the ancient Greek noun “χειμών” (winter). These indigenous people still believe in the twelve Olympian gods, and their architecture resembles very much the Macedonian architecture (National Herald, “A School in the Tribe of Kalash by Greeks,” October 11, 1996)”.

Michael Wood, the British scholar in his In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great (p.8), quotes the following statement made by a Kalash named Kazi Khushnawaz:

“Long long ago, before the days of Islam, Sikander e Aazem came to India. The Two Horned one whom you British people call Alexander the Great. (sic) He conquered the world and was a very great man, brave and dauntless and generous to his followers. When he left to go back to Greece, some of his men did not wish to go back with him but preferred to stay here. Their leader was a general called Shalakash [Seleucus]. With some of his officers and men, he came to these valleys, and they settled here and took local women, and here they stayed. We, the Kalash, the Black Kafir of the Hindu Kush, are the descendants of their children. Still, some of our words are the same as theirs, our music and our dances, too; we worship the same gods. This is why we believe the Greeks are our first ancestors”. (Seleucus was one of the Generals of Alexander the Great. He was born in 358 or 354 BC in the town of Europos, Macedonia and died in August/September 281 BC near Lysimathia, Thrace).

The Kalash today worship the ancient Greek gods and especially Di Zau [Dias Zeus], the great sky god. Unfortunately, their language died out only in Muslim times. It is further evidence that Macedonians and Greeks spoke the same language, had the same religion and the same customs.

Accusations of Macedonians being barbarians started in Athens, and they were the result of political fabrications based on the Macedonian way of life and not on their ethnicity or language. (Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, p158, Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 4). Demosthenes traveled to Macedonia twice for a total of nine months. He knew very well what language the Macedonians were speaking. We encountered similar behavior with Thrasyboulos. He states that the Acarnanians were barbarians only when the Athenians faced a conflict of political interest from the Acarnanians. The Macedonian way of life differed in many ways from the southern Greek way of life, but that was very common among the Western Greeks such as Chaones, Molossians, Thesprotians, Acarnanians, Aetolians, and Macedonians (Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 4.) Macedonian state institutions were similar to those of the Mycenean and Spartan (Wilcken, Alexander the Great, p 23). Regarding Demosthenes addressing Philip as “barbarian” even Badian an opponent of the Greekness of Macedonians states “It may have nothing to do with historical fact, any more than the orators’ tirades against their personal enemies usually have.” (E. Badian, Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia And Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Greeks and Macedonians).

Fallacy #6

Ancient Macedonia was a nation state as we presently understand it.

Fact #6

Before Phillip II, Macedonia was divided into typical small city-states having adopted the same concept of internal civic structure as the southern Greek city-states. Each Macedonian city-state or area had its main city and government. Philip II united the Macedonian city-states by instituting and establishing a Homeric style of a Kingdom, maintaining the infrastructure of the smaller city-states with the various kings paying tribute to the king of all Macedonia. We know this from the fact that at one time the king of Lyncestis (present-day Bitola – Florina) was Alexander III. The point that has to be made clear is that a man’s first loyalty was to his city, not to the King of Macedonia. (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 9).

Fallacy #7

Over the years the ancient Macedonians disappeared.

Fact #7

The ancient Macedonians did not disappear; over the years they were amalgamated with the other Greeks did among themselves.

Fallacy #8

If the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, why then was Alexander I, the king of Macedonia, named Philhellene (lover of Greece)? This title is bestowed only to foreigners.

Fact #8

The king of Macedonia, Alexander I, was named Philhellene by the Theban poet Pindaros for the same reason Jason of Pherrai and Euagoras of Cyprus were called Philhellenes (Isocrates 107A, 199A). The title Philhellene in ancient times meant Philopatris (lover of the homeland) or just put “a patriot” (Plato, Politics, 470E; Xenophon, Agesilaus, 7, 4), which is why Alexander the Great did not touch the traditional house of Pindaros when he ordered his soldiers to burn Thebes.

Fallacy #9

The ancient Greeks had a Greek or Hellenic national conscience, but the Macedonians proved that they were not Greeks because they destroyed Greek cities.

Fact #9

Greece is a peninsula, which lacking geographic continuity fostered alienation of individual tribes not only in the general sense but also in a narrower sense. That explains why the ancient Greeks did not have a collective national conscience which is why they were warring against each other. The Macedonians destroyed or burned cities belonging to other Greek City States for the same reason the Athenians, the Thebans, and the Spartans battled one another.

The Peloponnesian War authored by Thucydides, the first and foremost scientific historian ever, explain all about Greeks fighting each other and the reasons behind the authorship of this book. The Melian Dialogue in the same book (Thucydides V, 84-116) explains a few more things besides the result of that debate.

According to Xenophon (Xenophon, Hellenika Book II, chapter II, sections 19-20) at the end of the victorious for Sparta Peloponnesian war, Spartan allies Thebes and Corinth suggested that they burn the city of Athens. Spartans being magnanimous refused to do so.

I am offering information on a few more battles as the Battle of Helos that took place in circa 1213 BC, 20 years before the Trojan War (1193-1183 BC), the Battle of Leuktra (371 BC), the two Battles of Mantineia (418 BC and 362 BC).

They knew that somehow they were related, but localism and tribalism were much stronger than an ethnic Pan- Hellenic one. Ancient Greeks, of the Hellenic mainland, were united before an enemy attack that could endanger their freedom and welfare. This fact was displayed anytime the Persians attacked the Hellenic lands. Greeks from Ionia and Aeolia (present-day Aegean shores of Turkey), however, were mostly Persian allies in opposition to the Mainland Greeks.

It was common practice for various Hellenic states to form political/military alliances with each other and against each other, but they did not develop ethnic partnerships. There are plenty of such partnerships in the ancient Hellenic world.

A few centuries went by until the Greeks began developing a national conscience. The Greeks had achieved the completion of a national conscience by the time Justinian was crowned the Emperor of Byzantium. Very few ancient Greeks, such as Pericles, Demosthenes and Phillip II of Macedonia had the vision of a united country, but each one wanted to see his state as the leading force of such a union. Pericles dreamed of it, Demosthenes advocated it, but Phillip II materialized it. Also, the Macedonians had shared religious practices and customs as the Spartans.

Fallacy #10

The ancient Macedonians were one of the Illyrian tribes.

Fact #10

At that time, Illyrians lands were much to the north beyond the River Shkumbin. Although there is a lot of evidence (mostly indirect) regarding the language of the ancient Macedonians, there is one piece of evidence offered by Polybius in book XXVIII, paragraphs 8 and 9, where it states that the Macedonians were using translators when they were communicating with the Illyrians. It means the Macedonians and the Illyrians did not speak the same language. For instance, Perseus, the Macedonian king, sent Adaeus of Berroia (who spoke only Greek) and Pleuratus the Illyrian, as a translator (because he spoke the Illyrian language) on a mission to the Illyrian king Genthius (169 BC). Pleuratus was an exile living in Perseus’ court. Moreover, there is evidence that the Illyrians and the Macedonians were vicious enemies.

On the contrary, Macedonians and the rest of Greeks did not need nor use any translators.

Fallacy #11

Many of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are refugees that came to Macedonia during the First World War and especially during the 1920’s and 1930′ from Turkey, the Middle East, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria.

Fact #11

It is very accurate that a good number of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are refugees from various Middle Eastern countries. However, it is also true that these Greeks are descendants of those ancient Greeks, including ancient Macedonians, who either colonized multiple areas of what presently are Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Bulgaria, Turkey, the Middle East, or followed the greatest General of all times, Alexander the Great. These Greeks just came home after at least two and one-half millennia of spreading the Greek spirit, culture, language, and civilization. Mother Greece made her lands available to her returning and thought to be lost offspring. It was the least she could do. After all, they had every right to come home, just as the Jews did and they are still going back to Israel.

Fallacy #12

Sts. Cyril and Methodius were Slavs, and that is the rationale why they are called “the Apostles of the Slavs” and also “the Slav Apostles.”

Fact#12

The term “Slav Apostles” or the “Apostles of the Slavs” does not mean that the two brothers were Slavs. St. Thomas is called “the Indian Apostle,” but we all know that he was not an Indian. He merely taught Christianity to the Indians. The Greek brothers from Thessaloniki taught Christianity to the Slavs, they gave them the alphabet (presently called Cyrillic), and they translated the sacred and liturgical books of Christianity into the Old Church Slavonic, otherwise known as Old Bulgarian.

Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Epistles of December 31, 1980, and June 2, 1985, while he was commemorating the two brothers, affirmed the fact that both were Greeks from Thessaloniki.

Professors Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko Tŭrnovo, Bulgaria in their book, Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod (Short History of the Bulgarian Nation, pp 36-38), state very explicitly that the two brothers were Greeks from Thessaloniki. The late Oscar Halecki, Professor of Eastern European History, in his book Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe (chapter Moravian State and the Apostles of the Slavs) agrees with the authors of Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod.

Fallacy #13

The present-day emblem of the right wing VMRO-DPMNE party and other ultra-nationalist organizations in the FYROM is the lion. This lion is the same lion that Alexander the Great is depicted wearing above his head imprinted on some old coins.

Fact #13

There is nothing in common between the lion used by the right wing VMRO-DPMNE party and other ultra-nationalist organizations in the FYROM and the lion’s skin Alexander the Great wears as depicted in some coins. The FYROM’s lion is the Bulgarian lion, which is depicted in the Bulgarian Coat of Arms.

Alexander’s lion is the lion’s skin that Heracles killed in Nemea, which is one of the 12 deeds executed by the mythological hero. The lion skin that Alexander the Great wears signify his genetic relationship to Heracles (Hercules). There is an unpublished inscription from Xanthos dating from the third century BC (cf. Robert, Amyzon, 1,162, n 31) where the Ptolemies refer to their Ancestors as “Herakleidas Argeadas” (Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 265, n 6).

Fallacy #14

In other coins we see Alexander the Great having two horns on his head, and this signifies that he was an evil man.

Fact #14

In the Middle Eastern tradition, a horned man meant that he was dominant. Darius in his letters to Alexander the Great called him, Zul-Al-Kurnain or Double Horned one. Thus the horns on Alexander’s head means that he was recognized as most influential.

Fallacy #15

After the battle of Granicus, Alexander sent the Athenians 300 full suits of Persian armor as a present, with the following inscription: “Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persian who dwell in Asia.” J. R. Hamilton in a note on this event states, “Given the small part, which the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription [with the omission of any mention of the Macedonians] must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.”

Fact #15

J. R. Hamilton’s assumption is unconvincing. Alexander the Great had no reason to please anyone because the troops from South Greece were only 9,400, and as he admits, they only played a small part in the battle. Being the master of the expeditionary force and ignoring his Macedonians while exalting the “foreign Greeks,” Alexander would have faced the same angry Macedonians that he was confronted with in Opis when he appointed foreigners (Persians and Medes) to high ranks and offices in his Army and administration. However, none of the Macedonians complained about the inscription after the battle of Granicus because they considered themselves included in it.

The fact is that Alexander the Great considered himself and his Macedonians, Greek. He claimed ancestry on his mother’s side from Achilles and his father’s side from Hercules (Heracles). His ancestor, Alexander I, stated that he was Greek (Herodotus, Histories, V, 20, 22; VIII, 137; IX, 45).

Some of the scholars mentioned above initially were not sure about the Greekness of the Macedonians (i.e., NGL Hammond). Newly discovered artifacts and monuments that were excavated indicating the Macedonians were Greek made them admit their previous error. NGL Hammond explains the reason why scholars like Badian do not consider the Macedonians Greeks in his book, The Macedonian State (page 13, note 29). Hammond states that most recently E. Badian in Barr-Sharrar (pp 33-51) disregarded the evidence as explained in A History of Macedonia (NGL Hammond and G. T. Griffith, 1979 pp 39-54).

Borza wrote concerning Demosthenes, "Only recently have we begun to clarify these muddy waters by realizing the Demosthenes corpus for what it is: oratory designed to sway public opinion in Athens and thereby to formulate public policy. The elusive creature, Truth, is everywhere subordinate to its expressive servant, Rhetoric" (Borza1990, 5). Demosthenes was using a political attack on his enemy and was not referring to the Macedonian speech.

In response to Demosthenes’ political accusations, Aeschines reminded the Pnyx, i.e. the Parliament of Athens, that Philip’s father, Amyntas, was invited as a Greek to sit at the Peace Conference of Greek States of 371 BC which took place in Sparta because as a Greek “he was entitled to a seat.” Amyntas participated through an ambassador and voted in favor of Athens. The relevant text is as follows:

For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was entirely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this, I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted (Aeschines, On the Embassy, 32).

All names, whether members of the royal family or not, including names of other simple Macedonian citizens, i.e. Kallinis (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII par 11), Limnos from Chalastra (Plutarch, Parallel Lives of Famous Greeks and Romans, chap. Alexander) and all toponymies in the area of the Macedonian homeland were Greek. The Macedonian homeland included the city-states of Imathia, Pieria, Bottiea, Mygdonia, Crestonia, Bisaltia, Sintiki, Odomantis, Edonis, Elimea, Orestis, Eordea, Almopia, Lyncestis, Pelagonia and Macedonian Paeonia. Macedonian Paeonia is the part of Paeonia which lies south of the narrow pass at the area of Demir Kapija (The FYROM).

Fanula Papazoglu indirectly agrees with the concept of the above borderlines stating, “… it is often forgotten that ancient Macedonia occupied only a relatively small part of the Yugoslav Macedonia” (Papazoglu, Central Balkan Tribes, p. 268). Papazoglu’s two maps at the end of her doctoral dissertation (Makedonski gradovi u rimsko doba, Skoplje, 1957) portray only Macedonian territories under Roman rule.

Macedonia conquered the already Hellenized Paeonia in 217 BC under King Philip V, 106 years after the death of Alexander the Great. Any map that incorporates Paeonia into Macedonia before that year is utterly false. The conquest did not in any way alter the ethnic demography of the Paeonia.

All inscriptions and artifacts excavated, including those in Trebenište and Oleveni near Bitola, are in pure Greek. With a few exceptions, the only time one sees non-Greek names and toponymies is in areas that constituted the expansion of Macedonia, i.e. Paeonia, Thrace, etc. Any non-Greek names, words or toponymies found in the Macedonian homeland are remnant of Thracians, Phrygians or Paeonians that used to live there before their expulsion by the Macedonians.

Participation in the Olympic Games was unequivocally and unquestionably a function that only athletes of strictly Hellenic origin could partake. Archelaus had won in the Olympic and Pythian Games (Solinus 9, 16) and Alexander I had also won in the Olympic Games (Herodotus, Histories, V, 22).

It is stated by Herodotus (Histories VIII, 43) that some Peloponnesian cities inhabited by Lacedaemonians, Corinthians, Sicyonians, Epidaurians, Troezinians, and Hermionians and that except Hermionians all others were of Dorian and Macedonian blood. The above people were living in cities located in Peloponnesus, which makes the Macedonians as Greek as the Dorians.

The answer as to why Alexander sent the 300 full suits of Persian armor to goddess Athena, goes back to the battle of Thermopylae and all events that followed. But for one to understand it better, one has to know the story of the battle of Thermopylae.

The Persian Army and Navy, headed by Xerxes, won the battle against the 1300 Greeks (1000 from Phocis) lead by the 300 Spartans whose commander was Leonidas. It is essential for one to note that the Persians were victorious only when a local Greek, Ephialtes, betrayed a secret passage to the enemy who came from behind and thus surrounded the few Greeks. It is also important to know that according to Lycourgos’ laws, Spartans were not allowed to leave the battlefield for any reason, nor they were allowed to follow anyone in the battle. That’s why the Spartans did not follow Alexander against the Persians.

Herodotus (Histories b. VIII, 114) tells us:

“… the Spartans upon the urging of the Oracle of Delphi sent a messenger to Xerxes demanding reparations for the death of Leonidas. The man who obtained an interview with Xerxes said to him: ‘My lord, King of the Medes, the Lacedaemonians and the house of Heracles in Sparta demand satisfaction for blood, because you killed their king while he was fighting in defense of Greece.’ Xerxes laughed, and for a time did not answer…”

The royal house of Sparta (Herodotus VII, 204), and the royal house of Macedonia (cf. Fact #13) both claimed descent from Heracles (Hercules). Taking into consideration all of the above, we conclude that Alexander the Great, being victorious at the battle of Granicus, sent 300 full armor uniforms to goddess Athena who was also the goddess of war, and in this way, he AVENGED the 300 Spartans who died defending Greece.

Conclusion:

An abundance of information regarding the ancient Greek past comes to us from the Greek Mythology. Unfortunately, Mythology cannot be a dependable source since it cannot furnish accurate details which would help us reconstruct the Hellenic past. However, it does not mean it is entirely useless either. It elucidates through symbolism truths leading us to the right path while searching for historical facts through written or unwritten monuments. Such monuments are the only ones accepted by historians in their attempt to unlock hidden elements that hold the key to the reconstruction of the past of all Hellenic group of nations.

Countries are products of historical events, which is why they are born and die. Ethnicities are another matter. It takes a very long time to evolve. The same is true for appellations. Ethnicities cannot be given birth and receive names according to their political whim, as it is the case of the FYROM. Even Misirkov agrees with it (Misirkov, Skopje, 1974, 167).

The present-day Hellenic nation is the result of the social, civic and linguistic amalgamation of more than 230 tribes speaking more than 200 dialects that claimed descent from Hellen, son of Deukalion. The Hellenic nation is blessed to espouse in its lengthy life great personalities such as politicians, educators, soldiers, philosophers, and authors. They have all contributed in their way to the molding of their nation. They are the result of natural maturity and a consequence of historical, social, civic, linguistic and political developments that have taken place in the last 4,000 years.

“When we take into account the political conditions, religion, and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south…” (Wilcken, Alexander the Great, p 22). Most historians have assessed the Macedonian state of affairs similarly. The Macedonians were a Hellenic group of tribes belonging to the Western Greek ethnic group.

The Macedonians incorporated the territory of the native people into Macedonia and forced the Pieres, a Thracian tribe, out of the area to Mt. Pangaeum and the Bottiaiei from Bottiaia. They further expelled the Eordi from Eordaia and the Almopes from Almopia, and they similarly expelled all tribes (Thracian, Paeonian, Illyrian) they found in areas of Anthemus, Crestonia, Bysaltia and other lands. The Macedonians absorbed the few inhabitants of the above tribes that stayed behind. They established their suzerainty over the land of Macedonia without losing their ethnicity, language, or religion (Thucydides, II, 99). They also incorporated the lands of the Elimeiotae, Orestae, Lyncestae, Pelagones, and Deriopes all tribes living in Upper Macedonia who were Greek speakers, but of a different (Molossian) dialect from that spoken by the Macedonians (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 390). Then, living with savage northern neighbors such as Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians and later Dardanians, the Macedonians physically deflected their neighbors’ hordes forming an impenetrable fence denying them the opportunity to attack the Greek city-states of the south, which is why they are considered the bastion of Hellenism.

The evidence above shows that the ancient Macedonians were one of the Hellenic groups of tribes speaking a Greek dialect and having the same institutions as the Spartans and especially the Greeks of the Western group of nations. Thus, the fallacies emanated from the FYROM and its diaspora are vigorously repudiated.

About Marcus A. TemplarProfessor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Certified U.S. Army Instructor of Intelligence Courses, Certified Foreign Disclosures Officer, Certified Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian, SIGINT / All-Source Intelligence Analyst. He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

About the Macedonian LeagueWe are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity.

The Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Macedonian name dispute”, as this dispute is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

From the February 25, 2018 "Rally for Macedonia" in Melbourne, Australia

Marcus A. Templar National Security Advisor,
Macedonian League

The FYROM diaspora had developed the notion, “what kind of Macedonians are we if we cannot claim ancestry to the Macedonians of Alexander the Great?”

-- Marcus A. Templar

​Speech by the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor, Marcus A. Templar, read out by Chris Moutzikis, Director of Pan-Macedonian Melbourne:

To begin I would like to read out a message from Professor Marcus Templar that provides a very brief synopsis on the FYROM Name issue.

Professor Marcus A. Templar is:

a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist,

Certified U.S. Army Instructor of Intelligence Courses,

Certified Foreign Disclosures Officer,

Certified-All-Source Intelligence Analyst.

He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor and,

one of the world’s foremost experts on the subject, and

an authority on geopolitical analysis and recent history of the Balkan region.

My dear Australian friends,

The issue of the final name of the FYROM is not a matter of ancient history. History is in the past, and it is indisputable. It is a matter of national security for Greece as well as stability, territorial integrity and peace for the Balkan region. Allow me to provide you a very brief synopsis of the FYROM name issue:

The failure of Russian diplomacy to establish a dominant satellite state in the southern Balkans at the Council of Berlin, transformed into the impetus to do so after the complete control of the communist forces that established the Soviet Union in October 1917. The new Russian-led government realized that to spread the communist ideology and encroach as many lands as possible for the benefit of the Soviet Union; the state had to continue the foreign policies of Imperial Russia. Such a foreign policy meant for the south Balkans that, the national interests of Bulgaria were identical with national interests of the Soviet Union.

In 1919, the Central Committee of the Soviet Union created a body that would be tasked with the spreading of the communist ideology worldwide through a series of indoctrination.

Krste Petkov Misirkov, a Bulgarian socialist, published a book in Sofia, Bulgaria, titled On Macedonian Matters in 1903. That book either was edited or even revised between August 1914 and the end of 1923. In this book, Misirkov referred to the Slav population of the region of Macedonia as Macedonian Slavs or sometimes “Macedonians” explaining on page 159 that the term was regional, not ethnic. It is the same name that Greeks who live in Macedonia have been using for centuries and still use today. There is NO Macedonian ethnicity; it never was. Ethnically, ancient Macedonians were Greeks as are over 4M Macedonians currently residing in the Greek province of Macedonia and throughout the world. But let’s keep focus on the present.

During the Fifth World Congress in mid 1924, the communists Comintern issued a lengthy resolution titled “Resolution on National Question in Central Europe and Balkans”. The resolution declared the establishment of the “Balkan Federation” to be created in the region of Macedonia from territories of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece. The communist so called “liberation” of Macedonia from the clutches of the capitalist West would be achieved by vigorous “support of the national revolutionary movements of loyal communist forces who would terrorise and agitate for the formation of independent republics”, which then would unite into one communist state. The people of the region of Macedonia were all inhabitants of those lands regardless of their ethnic background or religion.

Moving forward to The 11 January 1934 A Resolution was drafted in Moscow under the title “The Macedonian Question and the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization - United”. Its purpose was the reinforcement of the previous resolution (1924). While section I recognized the so called “Macedonian” nation not as a community of descent, or ethnicity if you like, but as a political entity or a state, to use the words of the communists Comintern. In section II of the resolution, the communists Comintern appointed the government of the state to a Slavic Organisation transforming into a nation-state. As for the people in the region of Macedonia, according to the Communists were, again, all inhabitants of those lands regardless of their ethnic background or religion. Section II of the resolution referred to the governance and indoctrination (or brainwashing) of the people mentioned above.

It is remarkable that not one of the above documents referred to a “Macedonian people” as a community of descent, i.e., a nation in an ethnic sense. On the contrary, the main goal was the appropriation of lands which would be ceased by the communists and indoctrinated later by the Slavs.

At first the communists of Skopje attempted to connect themselves to the ancient Macedonians, but they were turned down by the Yugoslav communists as their claim was “deceptive.” Simultaneously, Yugoslav communists were adamant, “We cannot recognize you as a national distinction” i.e an ethnicity.

In fact, there is no explicit recognition by any legal authority in the Marxist Yugoslavia of an ethnic group called “Macedonian”. For Yugoslavia, the Macedonian ethnicity developed in the same manner that the Montenegrin ethnicity did, implicitly.

It is in this spirit which Kiro Gligorov, the first FYROM President, addressed your (Australian) FYROM diaspora, making it clear to them, who refused to accept the facts with respect to their Slavic ancestry. According to Historian Eugene Borza, “Modern Slavs, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedonia… Only the most radical Slavic factions – (mostly from the comfort of affluent) United States, Canada, and Australia – even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity[…] Politics in the Balkans transcends historical and biological truths” said Borza

The Marxist government of Yugoslavia let the so called “Macedonian” ethnicity develop only to use it as a tool for further expansion. Such a seemingly preposterous ethnogenesis could establish a birthright of Slav people over the land of Greek Macedonia with the port of Thessaloniki as its prize. Thus, the concept of Pseudomacedonism was developed.

The FYROM diaspora had developed the notion, “what kind of Macedonians are we if we cannot claim ancestry to the Macedonians of Alexander the Great?” Under monetary, non-monetary influence, and political extortion of its diaspora, politicians of the FYROM at first entertained the thought of their “blood relationship” to the ancient Macedonians. However, as the time passed, this pure wishful thinking developed to a staunch belief and beefed up by distortion, twisting and manipulation of historical facts turned into irredentism or rather expansionism. Since the independence of the FYROM, Greece has confronted and endured aggressive predisposition to include but not limited to:

demographic manipulations,

forgeries of history, and

relentless disinformation,

especially from the FYROM ultra-nationalistic diaspora.

If one desires regional stability and peace in the Balkans, one must help eradicate the source of the evil; stop assisting the verbal and tangible provocation of the FYROM diaspora in the world.

Sincerely Yours,
Marcus A Templar.

For a more academic account of this and other insightful articles and information from Professor Templar, please visit macedonianleague.org.

Chris Moutzikis continues with his own speech...

So, ladies and gentlemen we see from Professor Templar’s synopsis on this issue that the legacy of cold war politics is the emergence of pseudmacedonism and that has created a very volatile situation in the Balkan region, putting its people on a course of conflict.

A recent survey conducted in Skopje (capital of the FYROM) by the Institute for Democracy “Societas Civilis” showed that 61% of the multi-national residents of the republic accept the change of the republic’s name, of these 44% accept a new name that does not include the Greek name of “Macedonia”.

While in recent times pseudomacedonism was heavily propagated by the previous corrupt and ultra-nationalist Gruevski government, the people of FYROM have finally elected a government, whose leadership are showing signs of progression and willingness to repair their country. They appear to be dismantling the pseudomacedonian policy the previous government so vigorously applied spending billions of Euros on a project that transformed Skopje’s city centre into a kitsch, Disney land type of ancient Greek park. All the while inflation was rampant, unemployment soaring, and the state being rejected from joining global institutions that would guarantee their security and put them on the road to prosperity.

In the bid to transform public opinion, many of its leaders and influential personalities have acted responsibly and followed the example of their first President Gligorov and former Prime Minister Ljupko Georgievski in distancing themselves from pseudomacedonism.

FYROM is desperate to enter NATO and the EU and Greece is ready to support their euroatlantic aspirations once they drop pseudomacedonism and their expansionist propaganda.

Unfortunately, we are not immune to the conflict in this wonderful and peaceful country of ours -Australia and particularly in the world’s Most Liveable City-Melbourne.

The growing sentiment against pseudomacedonism in FYROM has not reached their diaspora, who in the comfort of their well-functioning state, stable employment and economic prosperity, prefer to support proponents of pseudomacedonism. Despite their Slavic heritage, which they should be very proud of, they prefer to parade around as descendants of Alexander the Great and other ancient Greek historical figures. Unfortunately, here in Australia, such supporters are more militant and would not hesitate in provoking anyone that challenges pseudomacedonism even to the point of intimidating and threatening violence. Regrettably this behaviour has raised its ugly head In Melbourne last Sunday morning when some FYROM Ultra-nationalists pasted racist and very offensive posters at a Greek Orthodox Church. The posters proclaim their expansionist agenda at the expense of Greek, Albanian and Bulgarian territory while using images of the star of Vergina (a Greek national symbol) and Alexander the Great. Another had an image that desecrates the Greek flag with some very racist and derogatory terms that captioned the image. This behaviour is reminiscent of the 90’s where tensions grew so high between our communities that it lead to violence and fire-bombing of churches and other community property. The windows of the Pan-Macedonian Hellenic Centre in North Fitzroy, still display the bullet marks. As recently as yesterday this building was once again vandalised by ultra-nationalist thugs. We are confident that our outstanding police force is on top of this dangerous situation and will prevent matters from escalating.

We have had enough of this rubbish and remind the Greek Government that they have no right to negotiate the use of our Hellenic name and offer future ultra-nationalist governments of FYROM the opportunity to reintroduce Pseudomacedonism.

We declare here today that:

We call upon our Australian compatriots to support its Greek-Australian community’s rightful stance against those negotiating the use of the Hellenic name of “Macedonia” to be part of a composite name of the FYROM.

We let the mainstream Australian media know that we are deeply disturbed and offended by their unjustified persistence in referring to FYROM as “Macedonia” in contrast to UN resolutions and our federal government's policy.

We have had enough of being discriminated against by media and many quasi government organisations that refer to FYROM as simply “Macedonia” and the Slavs of FYROM as “Macedonians” We respect the right to self-determination but others right to self-determination does not mean that our rights should be infringed upon.

To raise community awareness of the inherent injustice flowing from Australia's FYROM community who usurp Greek history and aspire to expand into Greek territory.

We want to co-exist and live in peace in this wonderful multicultural society of ours without constant provocation and threats from ultra-nationalist thugs.

To call for the recognition of human rights of indigenous Macedonian ethnic Greeks living in the state of FYROM.

One of the most challenging questions in Political Science is: What is the difference between patriotism and nationalism? The distinction between them is somewhat confusing, although they differ in origin. They are both political and appeared in the 18th century with the emergence of nation-states.

Patriotism originates from one’s citizenship. One is proud of the country one has pledged allegiance to and is ready to defend the national rights and interests of one’s country.

Nationalism derives from one’s ethnic identity sometimes with positive implications. A revolt or insurgency of people occupied by another nation-state is an act of a noble nationalism, mainly when the uprising or insurrection succeeds, i.e., revolution. Such examples are the American Revolution 1775-83 and the Greek Revolution, 1821-9. After independence, the same people turned to patriots because they defended their country against its enemies. So there is a correlation between virtuous nationalism and patriotism.

This paper focuses on the issue of the incendiary side of nationalism, which considers one’s ethnic or national identity is more significant in destiny than any other ethnicity, or that one race is superior as in Hitler’s National Socialism. To indicate the superiority of one’s race over another, nationalists demean anything or anyone for what other people stand. And to support their views individuals resort to the employment of immoral or illegal means. The difference between being proud of your national origin and believing one’s race is superior to any other is clear enough.

People who underestimate, belittle, derogate, minimize, deflate, disparage, depredate, and so on indicate malicious, wicked nationalism. Here are a few examples of dangerous nationalism:

Photo credit: Associated Press

The Cultural-Information Center in Skopje defames the Greek flag and Greece by positioning the Greek flag on a marquee, which instead of the cross brandishes the swastika. To express their deep feelings against the symbol of Greece and to draw sympathy, the organization added a family depicted as refugees who left Greece because of the Greeks. What they did not explain is that these “poor” refugees had left Greece on their own volition during the civil war (1946-9). What is significant is that instead of condemning such an act of hatred based nationalism, the Gruevski government justified it as an indication of freedom of speech. Therefore, the Gruevski government became an accomplice. ​

In another form of hateful nationalism, one sees the same Greek flag on a marquee in Skopje displayed on a T-shirt, but instead of depicting the family of refugees, it flaunts a gesture made by holding up the middle finger with the others folded down essentially saying, ''up yours.”

​There are a plethora of other irredentist slogans, photographs, and maps brandished at parades of the ethnic Slavs at home and abroad and also social media manifestly living in a time warp, not in reality of 2018.

Click to enlarge picture

But the fish stinks from the head. On December 13, 2016, the Macedonian League condemned the swastika t-shirt incident online.

Mr. Meto Koloski is an attorney and the President of the United “Macedonian” Diaspora, headquartered in Washington, DC, United States. In supporting his home country’s strategic culture and national goals, his organization exhibits inciteful nationalism. In his infinite wisdom, he tweeted under the photograph of the above T-shirt, “Since when did Greeks become a race?”

The same desecrated Greek flag featuring the swastika is seen on a poster that was taped on the doors of the Greek Orthodox Parish "The Presentation of Our Lady to the Temple" in Balwyn North, Victoria, Australia.

The poster depicts the swastika coloured in blue with a felt marker, the same middle finger gesture that was featured on the t-shirt above and, as is visible, also contains a few choice phrases towards Greece and Greeks.

In the video below, dated February 6, 2018, Mr. Koloski claims that his home country must not compromise anymore since it has done everything possible to satisfy Greece’s demands. Primarily, Mr. Koloski does not see why the FYROM should make more concessions other than those it has already made. He opposes to any change of the FYROM’s final name, and he thinks it violates the rights of the “Macedonians”. He noticeably adheres to the nonsensical sermon of Fr. Vinko Pribojević according to whom “all the ancient heroes of Thrace, Macedonia, and Illyricum were Slavs. Alexander and his generals, Aristotle, scores of Caesars, and Saint Jerome, were Slavs. And bellicose Mars was himself born among them [Slavs]” (Banac, 1988, p.71). ​

In the above video it is evident that Mr. Koloski over and above the confusion he has about the difference between patriotism and nationalism, he is also ignorant about the difference between ethnic identity and national identity.

As the former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once stated, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." So, let us see the facts.

1) The UN admitted the FYROM on April 7, 1993, only after the latter amended its Constitution to meet the minimum required qualifications per UN Charter, Chapter II – Membership. The FYROM was found to be in violation of articles Article 2 (7) on noninterference on the domestic affairs of other states. Yes, the FYROM was admitted to the UN on April 7, 1993, but only after Greece had allowed the membership of Mr. Koloski’s home country. Despite popular belief, the UN is a closed club, which requires the consensus of its member states.

The UN Security Council (UNSC), is the most important body within the UN. It is the law enforcement authority. According to the Charter, the UNSC has four purposes:

a) to maintain international peace and security;
b) to develop friendly relations among nations;
c) to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and
d) to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.

​Membership of a state is granted only at the recommendation of the UNSC (Chapter II, Article 4.2). All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the Charter.

​Since the UNSC found sufficient evidence to address Greece’s national security concerns, it mandated the negotiations for the change of the FYROM’s name. The map below tells all. It goes to the intent, not just the letter. Such a map is an indication of expansionism and irredentism.

​The irredentist map below was designed by Bulgarian “ethnographer” Vasil Kŭnchov in 1900 to serve the hegemonic interests of the Bulgarian Principality as the basis for its later independence by making almost all the population living within the territory of what he considered to be Macedonia, Bulgarians (green background). The map included Mount Olympus within Macedonian territory. The VMRO modified the map slightly and later, Marxist Yugoslavia added the region of Prohor Pcinski into Macedonia for political reasons, a modification that was relished by the VMRO which added the area surrounding the lakes Ohrid and the Prespas. Below left one sees the original map of Vasil Kŭnchov and to the right the enhanced map by the VMRO making all Bulgarians, Macedonians. ​​

Ethnic Map of the newly designed geographic Macedonia according to Vasil Kŭnchov in 1900

The enhanced map of the VMRO making all Bulgarians, Macedonians

The letter S/1995/794 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, dated 13 September 1995 with Annexes I to IX explains the reasons behind all changes that the FYROM had to implement. The modifications were necessary for the FYROM to meet the minimum standards required for the maintenance of regional stability. They are the heart of all modern day organizations that the FYROM was and is desirous of joining.

The UNSC through S 817/1993 unanimously approved the accession of the new state to the UN under the provisional name ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ (the FYROM) but without flag hoisting rights, since the flag was one of the issues of the dispute. The UNSC further considered the name dispute capable of influencing the good neighborly relations and peace in the region and invited the co-chairmen of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY) to offer their good services towards the settlement of the dispute. The intended agreement transpired in the interest of world peace, regional stability and good neighborly relations which is one of the fundamental obligations for membership in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), another UN organization. The same is true for accession into NATO and the EU.

The above is not a concession, but an obligation, a requirement that applies to all member states. If the FYROM does not agree with the obligations of membership, it is free to leave the UN. Member states must demonstrate a commitment to and respect for the norms and principles of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), including the resolution of ethnic disputes, external territorial conflicts including irredentist claims or internal jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means.

2) As the result of the FYROM’s UN membership and acceptance of the rules of the UN, on May 14, 1993, the Council of Europe granted the FYROM the special guest status, with no voting rights. Having completed a round of separate talks with the Foreign Ministers of Greece and the FYROM, the ICFY co-chairmen Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen handed the two parties a draft agreement on ‘Friendly Relations and Confidence Building Measures.’

On June 18, 1993, the UN Security Council, through it resolution S 845/1993, recommended the Vance-Owen proposals as a ‘sound basis’ for the settlement of the Athens-Skopje dispute and urge the two parties to resume negotiations. Both countries agreed to continue talks bound by their signature.

As a result, both countries entered into the Interim Accord (Sep 13, 1995). It is remarkable that nationals of the FYROM engaged in an assassination attempt against Mr. Kiro Gligorov, the republic’s first president. It indicates the level of the lack of respect for law and order in the FYROM and its diaspora.

Regarding the final name of the FYROM, why don’t they follow the advice of the “father of Macedonism,” Misirkov? What Misirkov states in his book is, “An ethnic group can be without an ethnic name for a long time if there is no other ethnic group nearby and if there is no need for that ethnic group to make a distinction using a specific ethnic name. Hence an ethnic group does not choose a name for itself, but the neighboring ethnic groups make up a name for it, and the ethnic group adopts it. It is the most common and very natural thing that one’s ethnic name first occurs in one of its neighboring ethnic groups. So, the neighboring ethnic group is related like a godfather and a godchild”.[i]

As for the ratification of the Accord, since both parties had expressed their intention to the UNSC to implement the Accord and proceeded to it, further sanction by the competent authority of both countries was not necessary. The intent to negotiate for a peaceful solution of the issue sufficed. The New Democracy Party, the official opposition of the Greek Parliament, did not object to the implementation. An accord or agreement is not a treaty. In International Law, as Mr. Koloski is aware of, the implementation of the Accord equals ratification. After all, all documents about the Accord had been duly registered with the Office of the Secretary-General of the UN.

3) The two amendments that the FYROM was directed by the UNSC to incorporate into its Constitution resulted from the legal language used in the official text under cover of which the FYROM implied,

a) The eventual implementation of its national goal by its strategic culture, i.e., the annexations of territories from each of its neighbors.

Get out young man
​
​Young man Get out to the balcony
and greet the countrymen of Gotse [Delchev]
raise your hands up high [Macedonian O-greeting]
The region of Thessaloniki [Greek Macedonia] will be ours.

​What they do not understand is that the negotiations were imposed by the UNSC, because the Constitution of the FYROM and the behavior of its governing mentality do not meet the minimum standards for membership in the UN.

The Interim Accord was MANDATED by the UNSC. If the FYROM does not comply with the UNSC mandate, then it will be out of the UN (UN Charter, Chapter II, Articles 3 to 6).

All the above bear witness to the aggressive ultra-nationalism that the UNSC was aware of and sided with Greece. Greece is right.

b) Although Skopje alleges that it only seeks equal rights for its Slavophone minority, essentially it seeks privileges. The Slavophone minority with Skopje national conscience in Greece per census and elections under free EU sponsorship is only about 6,000, i.e., 0.000521739 of the total population of Greece. They all already enjoy the benefits of equal rights as citizens of the EU. Only the Sultan guaranteed ethnic privileges to his loyal subjects. Skopje has no right to demand privileges for its people when it simultaneously refuses to grant equal rights to its 40-45% Albanian minority soon to become the majority in the country.

However, if in the opinion of the UMD, neither the EU nor NATO guarantees equal rights to all citizens in their member states, one wonders why the FYROM wants to join such “untrustworthy” organizations?

Furthermore, such demands are reciprocal. What is the reason that subsequent governments of the FYROM follow the norms of the Marxist government of the SFRJ not allowing competent agencies of the EU to conduct a free census of the population including, of course, minorities? Perhaps someone is willing to explain what happened to the 2011 census.

As claimed by the Serbian State Board of Statistics, in the region of the present day FYROM, the 1921 census numbered Greeks to be 41,597. In 1931 the Greeks were 44,608. The Germans conducted their count in the same area in 1941. They found that 100,000 out of a population of 800,000 people 12% were Greeks. In 1949 the capital alone had 30,000 Greeks. The census of 1951 counted the Greeks be 158.000;, 25,000 were native Greeks (Bitola area), 100,000 Vlach speaking Greeks, 3,000 Greek Saracatsans and 32,000 Greek political refugees. Because of these numbers, the authorities of Skopje forced about 100,000 to declare themselves “Macedonians” or Vlachs who, according to the authorities, were not Greeks (Stojković, 1952, 29).

It is remarkable that Marxist Yugoslavia published in a separate official census of 1981, a modification of the 1921 census above from 41,597 to 2,000 Greeks, while simultaneously the 1931 figures shrank the Greek community to 1,000 from the factual 44,608. Thus in line with the fake census, instead of the population increasing between 1921 and 1931, the Greek community decreased by 1,000. There was no explanation for such a loss (Beograd: Savenzni zavod za statistiku, 1982).

Mr. Kiro Gligorov, former President of the FYROM, stated that the Greeks in his country amounted to 100,000 people in 1990, but somehow the present bureau of statistics in the FYROM wants only 442 Greeks in the country. Where do the Greeks stand in the factual demographics?

In his book On Macedonian Matters, Krste Petkov Misirkov describes his fellow ethnic Slavs as Macedonian in a regional sense, not descendants of the ancient Macedonians.[ii] Besides, Misirkov states, “official recognition must be won for the Macedonian people; in all official documents and certificates the designation “Macedonian” must be introduced for all persons of Slav origin in Macedonia.” [iii]

Because of Misirkov’s clear explanation, the emblem of the purely ancient Macedonian Greek dynasty (Herodotus, Book I, p. 56) and the name “Macedonian” do not belong to the Slav population of the FYROM, which, by the way, does not live within ancient Macedonian territory. They are ethnic SLAVS residing in the regions of ancient Paionia and Dardania. Perhaps the Edicts of the Ashoka or Asoka the Great, an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty could shed some light on the matter of the ancient Macedonian ethnicity. Asoka had recorded the facts as he saw them.

“Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers being the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni”. (Trans. Ven. S. Dhammika, Edicts of the King Asoka, Kandy Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society, 1994) https://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html

Even Dr. Eugene Borza, a historian of Classics in his academic paper "Macedonia Redux," in The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Frances B. Titchener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999, 255, has stated,

“If the claim is based on ethnicity, it is an issue of different order. Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians[sic], cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions – mostly in the United States, Canada, and Australia – even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity… Politics in the Balkans transcends historical and biological truths”.

Those who believe that the judges of the Olympics accepted the king of Macedonia for political reasons, they might try to explain the participation and twice victorious Macedonian named Theagenes from Thassos, Macedonia, who competed at the 75th (480 BC) and 76th (476 BC) Olympiads and won in boxing and Pankration, a sort of modern kickboxing/wrestling (Pausanias VI, 6; 11,15; Plutarch 811D). The reader must have in mind that Theagenes’ victories occurred before Alexander I was allowed to participate. The mere fact that Macedonians were allowed to compete in the Greeks-only Olympic Games makes the Macedonians Greeks. Was Alexander the Great a Macedonian? Of course, he was, as Pericles was an Attican and Leonidas was a Laconian, and George Washington was Virginian American.

In the ancient times, the lower part of the FYROM was Paionia inhabited by Paionians, a Thraco-Illyrian tribe, whereas the region of Skopje was part of Dardania, Illyria populated by Dardanians. Only the area of the Greek region of Macedonia was inhabited by Macedonians, a bona fide Greek tribe. But even if one theorizes that the ancient Macedonians were not of Greek stock, it does not make the Slav inhabitants of the FYROM Macedonians. As for the absurdity that the Macedonians did not speak Greek, not one of the Greek tribes spoke Greek in the sense of present-day Greek language. Greek tribes numbered more than 230 speaking more than 200 dialects including the Macedonian, which was one of the Aeolic dialects. Macedonians of Upper Macedonia spoke a Molossian dialect, which fell into the Northwestern Doric group of dialects. So when the Slavs of the FYROM argue that Macedonians did not speak Greek, their argument begs for the definition of Greek language before 285 BC. It was the year Aristeas the Athenian grammarian was commissioned by Ptolemy II, the Greek King of Egypt, to formulate the Koine or Common Greek by the Attic dialect.

4) The renaming of the Skopje International Airport and Friendship Highway was forced on the Skopje government by their membership’s obligations toward the OSCE requirements, which are the foundations of both EU and NATO. The previous government, by raising new issues that did not exist before, tried to upgrade its negotiating leverage by adding bogus matters to be resolved. It is an old trick, but it does not work anymore. Too many organizations and too much is at stake on the outcome, so nobody eats it.
​
Since Macedonism was created to unite the Slavic citizens of the FYROM under a common, but false banner, what is going to happen when the catalyst does not exist anymore?

The historical forgeries in the form of naming highways, buildings, institutions followed by relentless disinformation were an apparent provocation, and an attempt to establish the Slav inhabitants of the FYROM as Macedonians by birthright is evident. The renaming of anything the Gruevski government had rechristened to ancient Greek personalities by far it is not a concession, but a return to historical reality.

What is important here is the fact that inflammatory nationalism in the FYROM comes from its diaspora, which parenthetically has the right to elect and be elected in their home country. This point should alarm a few people because the overcharged members of the ultra-nationalistic FYROM diaspora could conceivably hold the highest offices in Skopje influencing their views and thus creating an unwanted instability in the region or even undesirable calamity even in the world. The world is aware that most of such disasters started with local or regional conflicts.

The Future

For the sake of humanity, the cancer of Macedonism needs much more than a couple of aspirins to heal; it requires an excision. Competent authorities of the EU need to re-visit the contents of school books of the FYROM and ascertain that all maps and any irredentist materials are taken out of classrooms and public libraries. Children are too young to judge unproven theories and hypothetical situations. Also, the final treaty on the name of the FYROM forces the latter to do the same in schools sponsored by its diaspora and churches sponsored by its Church. Enough toxicity harbors in the hearts of the Slav citizens of the FYROM.

The differences in cultural and historical backgrounds between Greece and the FYROM complicate the process of a civilized, peaceful settlement of disputes and the identification of the interests of each country following the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Twenty-seven years after independence, the FYROM chose the path to intransigence on issues that evolved after 1878 and developed with the establishment of communism in the USSR.

One would expect that the FYROM’s revanchist behavior on territorial claims over lands that were never theirs as a result of a euphoric recall on a theoretical national, ethnic, and historical basis would give way to reason and reality. On the contrary; in the last 27 years the FYROM slowly but resolutely keep instilling violence and unjustifiably revanchist inspirations to its posterity poisoning their offspring in a row of absolute nationalism while simultaneously advocating an ethnicity that does not belong to the Slavic population. One must consider that in the last century their alleged ethnic identity changed four times.

Such differences interfere with the political dialogue contingent on logic and reason. One must consider the fact that about 250 Greek-owned businesses operate in the FYROM providing employment and income to a country that hates them. However, these relations must be rebuilt on the original foundations of equality and a free-market economy away from exclusive nationalism that promotes hatred, especially when such a hatred depends on the miserable racial and historical criteria of a past that never was.

The Balkans need new meaningful forms of cooperation that adhere to the principles of the OSCE. In the interest of Greece and the FYROM, each country must explore possible opportunities of trade and economic cooperation. Just imagine the potential of a Thessaloniki-Skopje-Belgrade (Danube) canal (Templar, June 30, 2014). All the countries of the Black Sea, without exception, could benefit from such a canal. The technology exists, and the tangible and intangible benefits of such a project outweigh the costs over a forward period with great potential financial return to the countries involved. Think of the impact that such a canal would have to commerce, business, and finances in the region, especially if one adds the sea thoroughfare. To utilize these opportunities, both countries should seriously try to restore a high-level political dialogue with substantive topics that could include the FYROM’s ascension to NATO and the EU. Only frank conversations on outstanding issues can influence official discourse.

The Balkans require seriousness and responsibility; Mr. Koloski and his kind are a thing of the past and they must be repulsed. This form of nationalism must become obsolete, and the deleterious education on all levels at the FYROM must end. The mentality of 1893 (VMRO) and 1943 (Jajce) must stop.
_____

About the Macedonian LeagueWe are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity.

The Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Macedonian name dispute”, as this dispute is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

​The antagonism between Serbia and Bulgaria compelled the earlier to expand south after 1878 and the latter to envision its expansion west. Both countries sowed the seeds of the present day problem. Neither of these two actors, Serbia and Bulgaria, considered the facts on the ground, which was much more complicated than the simple labeling of either Serbian or Bulgarian ethnicity.

The Bulgarians extended the term Macedonia to the area of the former Western Bulgarian Empire (present-day FYROM) just north of Macedonia proper. The Serbs, to counter the renaming of the land, extended the term Old Serbia to the south calling it South Serbia.

At present, about 90% of the ancient Macedonian kingdom is within Greece.​​The failure of the Russian diplomacy to establish a dominant satellite state in the southern Balkans in the Council of Berlin in 1878 transformed into the impetus to do so after the complete control of the communist forces that established the USSR in October 1917. The new Russian-led government realized that to spread the communist ideology and encroach as many lands as possible for the benefit of the USSR; the state had to continue the foreign policies of Imperial Russia. Such a foreign policy meant for the south Balkans that, the national interests of Bulgaria were identical with national interests of the USSR. The goal of the USSR was the establishment of a Greater Bulgaria, and if the plan failed due to external pressure create a new state that would serve the national interests of both Bulgaria and the USSR.

On March 4, 1919, the Central Committee of the USSR created a body that would concentrate to the spreading of the communist ideology worldwide through a series of indoctrination, but also an effort to solve the issue of the national question which had haunted the new state vis-a-vis the Marxist ideology.

​Krste Petkov Misirkov, a Bulgarian socialist, born in the region of Greek Macedonia published a book in Sofia, Bulgaria, titled On Macedonian matters in 1903 (Misirkov, Skopje, 1974). That book either was redacted or even revised between August 1914 and the end of 1923. In this book, Misirkov referred the Slav population of Macedonia as Macedonian Slavs or Macedonians explaining on page 159 that the term was regional, not ethnic. It is the same name that Greeks and others who live in Macedonia use today. There is NO Macedonian ethnicity; it never was. Ethnically, ancient Macedonians were Greeks.

During the Fifth World Congress transpired in June-July 1924, the Comintern issued a lengthy resolution titled “III Communist International, Fifth Congress - June 17 - July 8, 1924 "Resolution on National Question in Central Europe and Balkans”. In the first section under the title “Macedonian and Thracian Questions”, the resolution declared the establishment of the “Balkan Federation” to be created regarding Macedonia from territories from the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), Bulgaria and Greece. Regarding Thrace, the resolution called for the secession of Thrace from Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey. Both, Macedonia and Thrace, would be included in the “Balkan Federation”. The “liberation” of Macedonia and Thrace would be achieved by vigorous “support of the national revolutionary movements of the oppressed peoples of Macedonia and Thrace for the formation of independent republics”, which then would unite into one communist state. The Macedonian and Thracian people were all inhabitants of those lands regardless of their ethnic background or religion.

The 11 January 1934 Resolution was drafted in Moscow under the title “The Macedonian Question and the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization - United (IMRO-U)”. Its purpose was the reinforcement of the previous resolution (1924) while section I recognized the Macedonian nation not as a community of descent, but as a political entity or a country per glossary of the Comintern. A nation as a community of descent per Comintern was a tribe. In section II of the resolution, the Comintern appointed the government of the nation to the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) aka VMRO transforming the nation into a nation-state, always per the Comintern glossary. As for the Macedonian people, according to the same lexicon were, again, all inhabitants of those lands regardless of their ethnic background or religion. Section II of the resolution referred to the governance and indoctrination of the people mentioned above.

It is remarkable that not one of the above documents referred to a “Macedonian people” as a community of descent, i.e., a nation in an ethnic sense. On the contrary, the main goal was the appropriation of lands which would be “liberated” by the communists and indoctrinated later by the IMRO.

The communists of Skopje attempted to connect themselves to the ancient Macedonians, but they were turned down by the Yugoslav communists as their claim was “deceptive” (Katardjiev, Skopje, 1986, 376-377). Simultaneously, Yugoslav communists were adamant, “We cannot recognize you as a national distinction” (Katardjiev, Skopje, 1986, 381-382).

In fact, there is no explicit recognition by any legal authority in the Marxist Yugoslavia of an ethnic group called “Macedonian”. For Yugoslavia, the Macedonian ethnicity developed in the same manner that the Montenegrin ethnicity did, implicitly.

Such was the spirit which Kiro Gligorov, the first FYROM President, used making clear to representatives of the FYROM Australian diaspora that refused to accept the facts (Gligorov, Skopje, 2000, 354). According to Historian Eugene Borza, “Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians, and Macedonians[sic], cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom… Only the most radical Slavic factions – mostly in the United States, Canada, and Australia – even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity[…] Politics in the Balkans transcends historical and biological truths” (Borza,1999, 255).

The Marxist government of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRJ), later known as the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ) let the “Macedonian” ethnicity develop only to use it as a tool for further expansion. Such a made up ethnicity could establish a birthright of a Slav people over the land of Greek Macedonia and the port of Thessaloniki as its prize.

The FYROM diaspora had developed the notion, “what kind of Macedonians are we if we cannot claim our ancestry to the Macedonians of Alexander the Great?” Under monetary, non-monetary influence, and political extortion of its diaspora, politicians of the FYROM at first entertained the thought of their “blood relationship” to the ancient Macedonians. However, as the time passed the pure wishful thinking developed to a staunch belief and beefed up by malfeasance and manipulation of historical facts turned into irredentism. Since the independence of the FYROM, Greece has confronted and endured belligerent predisposition to include but not limited to demographic manipulations, forgeries of history, and relentless disinformation, especially from the FYROM ultra-nationalistic diaspora.If one desires regional stability and peace in the Balkans, one must help efface the source of the evil; stop assisting the verbal and tangible provocation of the FYROM diaspora in the world.

About Marcus A. TemplarProfessor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Certified U.S. Army Instructor of Intelligence Courses, Certified Foreign Disclosures Officer, Certified Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian, SIGINT / All-Source Intelligence Analyst. He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

About the Macedonian LeagueWe are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity.

The Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Macedonian name dispute”, as this dispute is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

It is evident from the article that the author picked and chose only specific negative issues that had allegedly transpired just because he relished them on a personal level instead of pointing out the goals and the purpose of the demonstration in Thessaloniki. In this manner, the author acted as a surrogate for the state instead of maintaining a demeanor of accepted norms of professional journalism.

Also, the pro-Skopjan article in hopes to balance the reality of the demonstration to the nonsense of a patriotically challenged Greek government averaged the number of participants to appear as fair and balanced. People who are genuinely familiar with Thessaloniki know exceptionally well the capacity of the areas the demonstration occurred by comparing it to the 1992 million people rally.

It is abhorrent for a newspaper which supposedly serves the Greek community in Australia to attack in essence Greek national security interests by stating that the patriotism of the Greeks is equal to the nationalism of the Skopje Slavs. If the writer is incapable of distinguishing the difference between the two human traits and their relation to their country, he should not get involved in areas he does not understand.

The demonstrators expressed their feeling to keep what is theirs whether it is land, history, heritage, and language. On the other hand, the Skopje Slavs strive to fulfill their irredentist national goal, i.e., the eventual claim and annexation of Macedonia to their Slavic state. How can these two be the same?

About Marcus A. TemplarProfessor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Certified U.S. Army Instructor of Intelligence Courses, Certified Foreign Disclosures Officer, Certified Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian, SIGINT / All-Source Intelligence Analyst. He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.​To read all his papers, please click here.

About the Macedonian LeagueWe are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity.

The Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Macedonian name dispute”, as this dispute is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

​Call me superstitious if you want, call me suspicious if you so desire; I would even accept the rebuke as being a pessimist, but in this case, I want to declare that I do not want to be right openly. Treaties never mean a solution, unless one believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. A solution denotes something final; treaties are temporary lasting until the parties want or the next problem appears. A Treaty with Skopje could be signed by the end of 2018 ONLY if the parties have already agreed to all points relevant to their national interests.

The FYROM has already a name that its Church uses, Povardarie. It is the name of the central area of the country located in the region of the ancient Paionia. It is the name of one of the FYROM Dioceses that expands from north to south alongside the river Axios [Vardar]. Perhaps it should be the basis for negotiations.

Whether the FYROM will include or exclude the name “Macedonia” or whether the derivatives of “Macedonia” are connected with formal or informal institutions, language, ethnicity, religious, heritage is somewhat immaterial under the scope of a treaty. A treaty might cure the symptoms, but it will ignore the causes of an infectious disease which is entirely ignored by Greek politicians, and they are instigated by the Slav politicians and even the Church of the FYROM. Politicians are the root of the problem, and through negotiations, they should be directed to address the cancer of Macedonism.

One must also consider the side effects of the issue on both sides. The less likely an agreement is achieved, the more critical the side-effects are; we all have witnessed them. Often side-effects that continue to flow from the negotiating process they could materialize and may be used to vindicate more careful negotiations.

To those unfamiliar to national security and how countries negotiate, the question that arises is not the treaty itself, but the containment of side-effects as propaganda, intelligence, espionage, deception, cyber-operations, verification and adjudication, the impact of the agreement on third parties and a few others. Negotiations cover future relations of governments, but leave the side-effects of such ties utilizing ambiguous language, as it is article 7.3. of the Interim Agreement raise more problems that contain.

The governments of both countries invoking the role of specificity must concentrate on solving all residual disagreements avoiding any carry-overs for future negotiations unless they are willing to gradually normalizing their relations. Greece will have to maintain the same leverage that she has at present, no final comprehensive treaty means no membership in international institutions.

Politicians understand domestic pressure, or they lose their political position. Demonstrations, lobbying, bringing matters of ethics, and even questioning their patriotism should apply. My question is why all these years since 1992 no events have transpired? If these demonstrations are for the sole purpose to destabilize the domestic political scene, the reasons are misguided. Greece needs domestic stability regardless of who governs since who governs was never an issue; how they govern is.

Some people might not consider the present political situation as being stable. However, the validity of such an assessment depends upon the criteria used to measure the servility to their political affinities. Such people do not serve the goals of the nation but their own.

I just hope the Greek government will not rush to sign a treaty that would look good to some who are ready to declare victory, but in fact will be the beginning of a nightmare and adventures to generations to come.

Politicians who pretend to be the saviors of Greece, before they sign anything MUST remember that the national goal of the FYROM Slavs is the “liberation” of Macedonia proper. I am not he who had made such a profound statement. It was the man who gave his life for Macedonia, Pavlos Melas. He said to George Sourlas, the director of schools at Nymphaion, "Macedonia is the lung of Greece; without it, the rest of Greece would be condemned to death."

In its first reading on November 15, 2017, lawmakers of the FYROM voted 66-41 in favor of the bill that would allow the language of any minority larger than 20% in the country to become one of the official languages of the country. Of the 66 deputies, 27 belonged to minority communities (one abstention).

As background information, the language issue regresses to the armed conflict between Albanians and Slav-led Army in 200-1 which resulted in the Ohrid Agreement. The Ohrid Agreement was hammered down by Javier Solana and George Papandreou out of which, the Albanians would not only defeat the Slav led Army, but the country would disintegrate.

Before the Ohrid Agreement emerged, the Slav government appreciating the impending danger worked simultaneously in two different directions to play it safe.

At first, the FYROM government requested help from the EU which moved fast with Javier Solana and George Papandreou. At that time, the Slavic speaking newspapers in the FYROM praised the efforts of the two men that kept the country together.

Concurrently, the President of the Assembly (Sobranie) Stojan Andov had authorized a parliamentary delegation of Slav deputies to visit the offices of the Socialist Party of Greece (PASOK) to request Greek help in case the FYROM disintegrated. At the time PASOK was in power in Greece. The delegation met with Mr. Beglitis seeking among other things Greece’s consideration for a federation with the remaining territory of the FYROM. The Slav parliamentary delegation had requested teachers to teach the children of the FYROM Greek, Greek language books, and money to finance such a project.

Because of the above conflict, the FYROM was forced to amend Article 7 of its Constitution by expanding its restrictions on the locality. While the article had declared the Slavic language being the only one in the country, Amendment V had made the language of any minority above 20% in the country an official language. Specifically it the amendment states, “Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below.”

The first law the Skopje Assembly passed on the matter reflected the new reality, but that proposal was flawed. It granted the right only in areas where the minority was larger than 20 percent of the population. That law was unconstitutional although the UMD never complained.

Per the VMRO-DPMNE the bill upon passing into law "deepens the differences” between the two main ethnic groups. They believe that "Bilingualism will create legal chaos. It will create inefficient institutions that will be lost in the translation, instead of being of real benefit to the citizens". However, such arguments are unfounded as countries like Belgium and Luxemburg function just fine. After all, the FYROM started as a multicultural society, and it should grow as such. That was the message of the Ohrid Agreement.

Nonetheless, here is the real nightmare for the FYROM. Considering the demographics of the 2002 census and the death and birth rate of the Slavs and the Albanians the population of the FYROM will shift in 2033 for the Albanians as they will dominate over the Slavs (Slavs 44.71% versus Albanians 45.29%). Following the same trend in 2044, the difference will spread with Slavs 36% and Albanians 54%. Since the 2002 census occurred under considerably questionable conditions, neither of the two main ethnic political parties was interested in contacting the census in 2011 which was canceled by the VMRO-DPMNE led FYROM government.

Manipulation of statistics is nothing unusual for the FYROM and its Marxist past. For instance, according to the State Board of Statistics in Belgrade the 1921 census in the region that presently is the FYROM, the Greeks numbered to be 41,597; in 1931 census indicated that 44,608 Greeks lived in the same area. In 1949, Skopje alone had 30,000 Greeks. Also In 1948, the Bulgarian population in the FYROM was 61,140.

However in 1981, miraculously the above statistics faded away reappeared as follows: The 1921 population of the Greek in the FYROM region came down to 2,000, the population and the one of 1931 went down to 1,000 without explaining what happened in those ten years to the missing Greeks. As for the Bulgarian population it almost disappeared from the 1948 population of 61,140 to only 1,000 in 1981. It does mean that the number of the actual people had changed, but it says that in 1981 the Yugoslav Marxists re-visited the old statistics turning them to more politically convenient numbers (Stojković 1952, 29). Not one person in the world who understands statistics can accept round numbers as factual.

A new census is essential because it will answer three crucial questions.

The first question is, how many people live in the FYROM because of the constant migration abroad.

The second question is, how do the people live in the republic?

The third competing question is, what are their practical social, economic, regional problems, so the government apply appropriate public policies?

The constituency of VMRO-DPMNE and DUI should stop being obsequious to their extreme right ideology as a factotum to political parties denying reality in their home country. A new census could bring unbearable news, but it is a must. Javier Solana summed it up very well saying, "In 2001, we were talking about being at the brink of a catastrophe; and now, in 2008, we are talking about being a candidate for the European Union. This is a great success." The FYROM should either cope with the multicultural reality or face catastrophe.

As the time has come that Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) are close to signing a permanent treaty on the name of the latter, Greeks of Greece, but also the diaspora need your assurance that you are going to preserve Greece's present and future national interests in the form of inclusion in the treaty of all derivatives of the word "Macedonia" even as a composite name. One must discern the political, linguistic, and social norms in Yugoslavia, the parent state of the FYROM before proceeding to an agreement for agreement sake.

The Macedonian ethnicity was never explicitly recognized by the Marxist regime of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and later the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. The recognition was gradual and implicit primarily by the people of Yugoslavia and then by the federative government of the constitutive republic of "Macedonia," who did not belong to any of the other ethnic groups inhabiting the republic. It was the result of a simple default. All derivatives of the word Macedonia evolved similarly.

The expression "Slavs of Macedonia" developed to "Macedonian Slavs" to "Macedonians", since they were the only inhabitants of Macedonia deprived of an ethnic appellation (Misirkov 1974, 159). To avoid any confusion, the Comintern used the expression Macedonian people (Македонский народ) as meaning the people of Macedonia regardless of ethnicity (Hristo Andonov-Poljanski 1981). Regarding the Macedonian nation (Mакедонская нация), Comintern recognized a state governed by the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (Comintern Resolutions of1924 and 1934). It follows the model of the United Nations. i.e., countries; Comintern never recognized a community of descent.

But we have to ask the question,what kind of a final name is in the Greek national interests -- the dynamic, the stable, the solid one or the one struggling with all sorts of problems destabilizing the region? An unsuitable name could be the one struggling with all kinds of problems destabilizing the region. Another critical question is, what is the “new” Skopje is going do with the institutions its diaspora created and all of its past governments supported? This issue includes all institutions, not only within the country but especially abroad including but not limited those within Greece. It also requires a balanced and responsible approach.

Without the right approach, the current positive direction of the process of normalizing the relations between the two countries might turn into its contrary, leading to the undermining of regional stability. Existing instruments for supporting the balance must not be shattered but modified by the demands of the age. They must be utilized to strengthen security and stability and improve relations between states instead of being viewed as the veneer of a bad treaty. Greece has the normative leverage to enforce its final determination of a political or a practical decision with appropriate anticipatory consequences of a proposed course of action that would bear on concerns where the advantage is probably a factor.Dear Sir, The making of a stable self-controlling national culture and a peaceful region is undoubtedly a difficult task. Once the aftershock of the previous strategic culture begins to subside, the FYROM must start to reconsider the identity of its Slav populace and through public encouragement and education provided that the incentives become a top-down approach short and precise in no uncertain terms. In an eternal Macedonia, only one ethnicity can reside, the Greek.Thank you for your time.

​The state is not "abolished." It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase "a free people's state," both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand (Engels 1877).

The matter of Yugoslavism is neither new nor straightforward. The idea behind it appears in 1796 as part of a wish for frequently commercial purposes. Yugoslavism developed and spread mostly on a linguistic basis in 1832, and it grew to a nationalist association between 1835 and 1849 along with the Pan-Slavic movement. One could argue that Yugoslavism was an offshoot of South Slavic Pan-Slavism.

Yugoslavism would ebb and tide without specific intervals and in 1918 because of necessity Yugoslavism settled into one state with three related Slavic tribes, the Serbs, the Croats, and the Slovenes. It is why the first Yugoslavian state was named after those tribes. Montenegrins and Macedonian Slavs were Slavs within the Serbian tribe regardless of their historically different paths. The appellation of the region between the city of Niš and the borders with Greece reflected the view, South Serbia.

King Alexander II of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes dreamed of unifying the three Slavic tribes into one South Slavic unitary state, on the principles of the united Yugoslavian spirit, but his assassination in Marseilles killed the dream as well.

Bulgarian fanatics of the right wing of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) and followers of Vančo Mihajlov (Vancho Mihailov) detested the idea, conspired with Mussolini’s Italian and Hungarian fascist governments abolished the concept of a unitary Yugoslavian state. That was the end of first Yugoslavia.​King Alexander’s successor was his son Peter who was only 11 years old. Thus, Alexander’s cousin Paul became the regent starting the era of the Second Yugoslavia. Prince Paul’s regency was somewhat democratic and more Yugoslavian in spirit compared to King Alexander who was more of a Serb and autocrat.

Although when the WWII broke up, Yugoslavia declared neutrality in 1939. Italy and Hungary allowed Croatia's nationalists the use of their territories for their terrorist activities. Prince Paul’s democratic values and in the name of Yugoslavian unity gave in to pressure by the Croats accepting the Maček - Cvetković agreement which materialized (August 23, 1939), which in essence destroyed the pre-war Yugoslavia.

However, in 1941 just before Germany attacked Greece through Bulgaria, the Yugoslavian government of Prince Paul signed the Axis Tripartite Pact but with reservations regarding Yugoslavia’s sovereignty during the war, no request for military assistance or use of Yugoslavian territory for military purposes (J. B. Hoptner, 1962).

The Special Glossary of the Comintern

Because of its Marxist foundations, the SFRJ developed its legal glossary, which sometimes conflicted with international law and norms.

​Statism (etatizam) is the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. In SFRJ, statism was something negative opposing to self-management. Yugoslavia was a socialist state, but not in the sense of traditional socialism. The Constitution of 1974 not only added 42 amendments to the 1963 Constitution but also defined in its Preamble the constitutional system of the country as a “unique socialist self-management basis”. According to Chomsky, socialism should create alternative institutions that would be the basis of a community of workers who would then supervise their fates and their bodies, and their free associations to develop different types of general communities. Such was the self-governing socialism of Yugoslavia (Svijelto, January 1, 2014). Yugoslav self-management was ideologically opposite to Soviet state-socialism, which primarily was statism, as well as the interwar kingdom’s unitary state.

The Leaders of the SFRJ called the governing party the “League of Communists of Yugoslavia” (Savez komunista Jugoslavije, (SKJ)) in 1952, to indicate the difference of the Yugoslavian state Marxist origins from those of the USSR.

Nation (nacija) signified the constitutive nations (konstitutivne nacije) of Yugoslavia (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Muslims, Montenegrins, and “Macedonians”) by the Marxist line, which denoted a legal entity identical to modern “nation-state”. A nation as a community of descent is a tribe, consistent with the theory of Frederick Engels. The Marxist glossary determines that a nation is a community of common interests and needs with common vision for the future; it consists of groups of unrelated ethnicities with a specific territory and a common language needed to achieve a consistent communication. At this stage, a government is nonexistent, though, the moment the nation launches a government, it transforms into a nation-state. (Rosdolsky, Summer 1965, II; Nimni, Fall 1989, 305).

Even Georgi Dimitrov had a problem with such a differentiation, but he would not dare to bring the issue up before Stalin mumbling “a nation and the people are not identical” (Hadjinikolov et al., 1949; Savova, 1982).[i]

Furthermore, Dimitrov conceded that Macedonians were a separate “people”, only pointing out in private that Marxist theory differentiated between “people” and “nation”. Such subtlety was unnoticed, as publicly and continually confirmed that all Macedonians should be united in the eponymous Yugoslav republic. This was the principle adopted by the Tenth Plenum of the CC on 9-10 August 1946. When the BRP(K) [Bulgarian Workers' Party (Communist)], leaders are resolved to support the policy, already in progress, of “macedonizing” the inhabitants of Macedonia. In addition to setting up Macedonian-language libraries and schools, a census was carried in December 1946 in which the Communist authorities forcibly registered the population as Macedonian rather than Bulgarian” (Baev. n.d.; Issussov, 1991 in Stankova, 2010).

​People (narod) is a group of working ordinary people (folk, Volk, λαός, κόσμος) who lived within a nation, regardless of their ethnicity, since the latter was against the Marxist theory. In the case of Macedonia, Macedonian people meant all people of Macedonia regardless of ethnicity (Hristo Andonov-Poljanski. 1981, v. 2)​Nationality (narodnost) in SFRJ indicated ethnicity, a term used to describe the unique status of non-constitutive nations. The status of those nationalities did not fulfill the complete characteristics to form a nation. These were the same national minorities (nacionalne manjine), like Albanians, Hungarians as were previously named.

The same was true in the USSR. "Nationality" in the Soviet Union did not mean "citizenship", as is usual in many other countries. In all Soviet “questionnaires for work or applications for education, and in all passports (until the passport reform of 1976), there were two entries: "Citizenship" (which could be "Soviet," "Hungarian," or "British") and "Nationality" (which could be "Russian," "Ukrainian," "Jew," "Uzbek," "Tadzhik," "Tatar," "Armenian," "Bashkir," and more than a hundred others) (Medvedev 1979, 57n).

Conversely, International Law defies nationality as a loose term of citizenship. It is the reason why countries manifest as the nationality of the bearers the country of which they hold citizenship.

However, to avoid confusion, passports of the SFRJ had no reference to nationality whatsoever as for the term conflicted with the internal political definition of nationality.

Those above also applies to the United States and the UN. Before an act of the U.S. Congress made them citizens, American Indians were sometimes referred to as “noncitizen nationals.” The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states [in article 15 (1)] that “everyone has the right to a nationality” and [in article 15(2)] that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality.” Nationality is of cardinal importance because it is mainly through nationality that the individual comes within the scope of international law and has access to the political and economic rights and privileges conferred by modern states on their nationals. At no time, nationality is synonymous or interchangeable with ethnicity. U.S. passport holders can see that in the place of nationality is The United States of America.

Comintern and Macedonia

Since the establishment of the Third Communist International or Comintern on May 6, 1919, the newly established political tool put as its primary task to solve the National Questions of the world. The aim of the Comintern was not the creation of a Macedonian nation in the form of ethnicity; Comintern’s objective was the creation of a nation-state populated by the Macedonian people, which included ALL inhabitants who lived in the geographical region of Macedonia as Bulgaria had “defined” in 1900 with the map of Kunchov. Bulgaria’s definition of Macedonia included all lands of the area of the Pirin Mountain, the region of South Serbia (contemporary FYROM) and the entire Greek region of Macedonia. Some Bulgarian ultra-nationalists even included the Serbian Šumadija.

The failed Vienna Manifesto of 1924, gave rise to the resolution of the Fifth World Congress of the Comintern (June 17 - July 8, 1924). The latter issued its first declaration on the “Resolution on National Question in Central Europe and Balkans”. One of the concerns of the Congress was “The Balkans Macedonian and Thracian Questions”.

The Fifth Congress of the Comintern believed that the problems of Macedonian and Thracian National Questions could be solved “only by the Balkan Federation of Communist Parties, by directing it into the channel of the proletarian revolution in the Balkans”. The Congress noted “with satisfaction that the Sixth Conference of the Balkan Communist Federation decided on the toned solution of this important question. The Congress considers the slogans formulated at the Sixth Conference of the Balkan Communist Federation - "For a United and Independent Macedonia," and "For a United and Independent Thrace," as entirely correct, and truly revolutionary”.

​Almost identical was the Resolution of January 11, 1934, which established and recognized the Macedonian nation-state, not a community of descent as it is the popular belief. The state of Macedonia was inhabited by the Macedonian people regardless of ethnicity, under the IMRO government, i.e., the Balkan Federation. One of the characteristics of the above resolution is that it alludes to the fact that Slavs of Macedonia were part of the Serbian tribe stating,​

​The chauvinists of Greater Serbia, referring to the presence of Serbian impurities in the language of the local Macedonian population, declare this population as one of the tribes of the unitary Yugoslav nation-state and forcibly dominates it (Comintern, 1934).

The statement above referred to the Serbs who kept adding into the language of the local Slavic dialects of South Serbia words, grammatical and phonetic forms foreign to the speakers. As for the impurities, it refers to those transitional dialects as Novaković had perceived. Three of those dialects belong to present-day, FYROM.

Marxist Yugoslavia

​The Third Yugoslavia was the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia that established in the mountains of Bosnia (Bihać and Jajce) with Tito’s concept of Brotherhood and Unity (Bratstvo i Jedinstvo). Josip Broz Tito and Edvard Kardelj, his No 2 man believed that Marxist theory of “the state” could materialize at a time that it was already dead in the USSR and was dying in the West a slow death.

At the founding Congress of the Communist Party of Serbia on 11 May 1945, Tito said:​

​With the Bulgarians, we are trying, and they are trying as well, to make our relationship of brotherhood and unity firm. We have deeper ambitions with the Bulgarians, and we have wanted to realize them, but the English and the Americans have not allowed It. Fine; we shall not (do it) now. However, no one can stop us in this. We are Slavs, and they are also Slavs, and they have always been in the hands of reaction. It is up to us, the Yugoslav Communists, to develop the consciousness that we need to live with the Bulgarians in the closest relationship so that between us and the Bulgarians there should be no greater contradictions than between Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. We shall act so that the Bulgarian people will be happy, as we shall be too when we unite in a country of the South Slavs (Tito, 1945).

In February 1945 in Yalta, Stalin had given his word to both Roosevelt and Churchill that Greece would fall under the influence of the Anglo-American political sphere. Because of that, no Macedonian federation could or would include Greek territories, although he did not have any objection if Yugoslavia “swallowed” Albania (Djilas 1962, 143, 182). The last thing Stalin wanted was to be seen as untrustworthy. Although it was imperative to Stalin that he was perceived as a man of his word, he had no choice. In 1948, the reality was that the USSR’s mortars were not by anyone’s wildest imagination a match for the United States’ nuclear bomb. With no help from Moscow, the efforts of Yugoslavia proved fruitless (Templar 2014).

The friction between Tito and Stalin created a new reality. Moscow not only would not look unreliable to the West but also it cared about warm water ports without restrictions, something that was impossible to do due to the Straits regime and the fact that both Greece and Turkey were members of NATO. Thus, the only available warm water ports were Croatia’s ports. Yugoslavia was not a member of the two political worlds; one would argue that it was the leader of the Third World.

Kardelj introduced the idea of self-management, which he took from the Paris Commune (1871). The difference was that in the case of the Paris Commune everything the workers had done was voluntary. In the case of Yugoslavia’s self-management was imposed on the people by the government. Furthermore, Kardelj introduced the easing of anything had left from the already weak central government. He along with the whole leadership of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia directed the country toward the final stage of communism. He imposed two competing, but mutually exclusive paths, the loss of social domination of the state over individual citizens while simultaneously he pushed for the socialization of the government, which, however, was linked to the strategic developmental culture of the country. Those two paths opposing each other collided resulting in the slow disappearance of the nation-state.

Since the conception of Communism, its more significant challenge was the National Question. In the Balkans, the staunch Bulgarians in Macedonia organized the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), and through it, they repeatedly attempted to solve the Macedonian Question by their political interests. While they were striving to establish a “Peoples Republic of Macedonia” they did it in two ways parallel to each through either: a) an armed insurrection, and b) diplomacy using the assets of the Principality pretending they were fighting for “mother Bulgaria” and the Exarchate. Between their founding moment and the establishment of the USSR, the IMRO fought to institute a Macedonian nation-state, i.e., a Macedonian nation in the Marxist connotation governed by their organization.

​While Bulgaria gave up the idea of the realization of the Balkan Federation, Marxist Yugoslavia pursued the fulfillment of the Comintern’s resolutions. Later in 1944, with the Yugoslavian Communist Party in power, the Macedonists did precisely what they had wanted to do in 1939. The People’s Republic of “Macedonia” within the Yugoslav federation was a fact.

The active assistance of the Greek Communist party was indispensable. “On March 1, 1949, Radio Free Greece broadcast the resolution of the Second Plenum of the NOF central council on February 2, 1949. According to the NOF resolution, NOF will mobilize all its available resources, social and human… (and) It will declare the Union of Macedonia into a complete, independent, and equal Macedonian nation within the Popular Democratic Federation of the Balkan peoples” (Kousoulas 2016 ). The AVNOJ [ii] Yugoslavia did anything possible to accommodate its expansionistic foreign policy under the spirit of Marxist ideology’s self-determination covering national goals designed by Stojan Novaković toward the end of the 19th century, an exit to the Aegean Sea.

The Serbs envisaged at expanding south and the Bulgarians west. Such conditions produced a rivalry, while the Bulgarians for historical and linguistic reasons tried to establish that the Slavs of South Serbia were Bulgarians, the Serbs tried to prove not what these people were, but what they were not. It is noteworthy that Novaković attempted to win the propaganda battle by scheming, stating,​

​The Bulgarian literary language develops to a more Western Bulgarian speech. They [the speakers] say it is because their voice is more apparent and [their speech is] closer to their Slavic roots. We can say [in response] that these dialects are either equal to, or they are, en masse, the residue of the Serbian dialects, so that many of them strictly taken, fall into that great and full transitional zone between the Serbian and Bulgarian (Novaković, 1906).

When he realized that scheming did not work, he returned to the good old diplomacy. For both the Serbs and the Bulgarians, the issue of was not the toponym of the area, but the ethnic origin of the Slavic population of the federal republic of “Macedonia”. For instance, Slavs, not ethnic Montenegrins inhabit the region of Black Mountain or Montenegro speaking a Serbian dialect, not Montenegrin.

As Misirkov put it,​​

So, the central Macedonian dialect is equally far from both the Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian literary language and can be observed as something different and distinct from either of them. That means that we found a neutral dialect in the south-Slavic chain of dialects. Now we need to decide if that neutral dialect stands alone with a distinct color from the other dialects, or if there are other dialects with the same color, or a color closer either to the central Macedonian dialect, or to the eastern Bulgarian dialect, or to the Serbian language of Vuk Karadžić. It is easy to see that all dialects that surround the central Macedonian dialect are much closer to it than to any of the central dialects of the other South Slavs (Misirkov, 1974).

​In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the present day area of the FYROM was considered part of South Serbia and its Slav inhabitants Serbs. Their Slavic dialect was not a problem since Serbian includes some dialects, by some accounts a transitional to Bulgarian group of about ten dialects known as Torlak.

Misirkov has already determined the national identity and Slavic origin of the “Macedonians” of the FYROM. In his book On Macedonian Matters, he mentioned the “Macedonian Slavs” 18 times, referring to himself and his compatriots as Slavs 88 times, and stated 14 times the adjective Slavic while describing a noun or pronoun associated with their Slavic origin and identity. Misirkov always used the designation “Macedonian” as a demonym or local identifier. He stated that they belong to the “Slav national family” (Misirkov 1974, 84). Misirkov should know; he was born in Pella, the Capital of the Macedonian Kingdom. He further stated, “This means that there is Slav population in Macedonia but not a Serbian or Bulgarian population (Misirkov 1974, 165).

However, there is the matter of the word “nation” in Misirkov. The only time he used the word “nation” was this: “Is it possible now for the national unification of the Macedonians, when in Macedonia there are many, not just one ethnicity, and when there is no separate Macedonian Slavic nation?” Even here, Misirkov used the word “Nation” as a nation-state, a country. Translations of Misirkov’s book refer to the word “nation” instead of “people” despite the fact that the author used “Narod”. It seems that the translators either were ignorant of the dual meaning of the word, or they did it on purpose.

Not once Misirkov had mentioned any ties of the Macedonian Slavs to the ancient Macedonians. The authorities of the kingdom of Yugoslavia, the League of Communists and President Gligorov did the same.

Ethnic Groups in Marxist Yugoslavia

Montenegrins under the original Yugoslavism were included in the Serbian ethnicity. Their Serbian dialect is Eastern Herzegovinian (along with Zeta), which is identical to the Serbian of Bosnia. Because of the geographical differences and their proximity from the “metropolitan” Serbia, Montenegrins developed their historical reality, which however gave the impression of an ethnic duality in their national identity. The Greens (Zelenaši) who adhered to nativism and the Whites (Bijelaši) who claimed Serbian heritage. Milovan Djilas (Đilas), a Montenegrin himself, felt that Montenegrins were ethnically Serbs, but by nationality Montenegrins (Pijade 1948). They did not need explicit recognition since they were part of the three south Slavic “tribes”.

The Council of Berlin passed Bosnia and Hercegovina to the Austro-Hungarian Empire initially for administrative purposes; it created an antagonism between Serbia and Bulgaria vying to gain control of the region of present-day FYROM. The Sandžak area had remained under Ottoman control isolating Serbia from the natural ports of Montenegro.

The recognition of the Muslims as a distinct ethnicity was explicit. The Constitution of Yugoslavia was amended to list "Muslims" as a separate ethnicity and a constitutive nation. Before this recognition, Aleksandar Ranković, the third most powerful man in Yugoslavia after Josip Broz Tito and Edvard Kardelj, had criticized the use of “Muslim” as an ethnic denomination because “Muslim” is a religious denotation, not an ethnic.

Marxism was the basis for the establishment of Socialist Yugoslavia as interpreted by Aleksandar Rankovic and later by Edvard Kardelj. Although many people blame Tito as the creator of the new philosophy, Tito himself clarified, “Titoism as a separate ideological line does not exist ... To put it as an ideology would be stupid .... it is simply that we have added nothing to Marxist-Leninist doctrine. We have only applied that doctrine in consonance with our situation. Since there is nothing new, there is no new ideology. Should Titoism become an ideological line, we would become revisionists; we would have renounced Marxism. We are Marxists; I am a Marxist, and therefore I cannot be a Titoist (Dedijer, 1953). Excluding Greece, the outcome of WWII gave the communist parties of the Balkans the opportunity to set the foundations of the Balkan federation, oscillating between the socialist and communist understanding of such a union. The difference is that in the socialist view the territories of each country would remain the same forming a gradual rapprochement of existing communist regimes. In the communist view, Macedonia would establish a new state while the rest of the “socialist” countries would form the Balkan Soviet Socialist Federation. The last one would include Greece with its borders in Thessaly.

The issue of the national identity of the Slavs of Skopje was entirely different. Between 1941 and 1944, because of the occupation, the distance, but also the somewhat hostile feelings because of the Serbian rule during the interwar era communication with organized communist units of resistance was nearly impossible. The defection of the entire organization of the Macedonian Communist Party and especially its leader Metodi Satarov to Bulgaria in 1941 created problems to the cause of a cohesive communist Yugoslavia. One of the issues was the possibility that the area of Macedonia would pass to Bulgaria once the war was over regardless of the legal jurisdiction over South Serbia of the pre-war Yugoslavia.

The national identity of the Slav people of Skopje was always a problem in the past. SFRJ faced the same as Novaković, and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had done beforehand. The Slavic people who arrived in the region around AD sixth and seventh centuries and ended up migrating to the Asia Minor had neither endonym nor exonym except for the Slavic names of the so-called Seven Slavic tribes all of them belonged to. They never used a collective name and since they were mostly mixed with Bulgarians and Serbs in the past their name remained insignificant (Toynbee, 1973; Ninić, 1989; Kostelski, 1952; Treadgold, 1998; Ćirković, 2008; Živković, 2008; Lemerle, 1965).

During the WWII, the issue of Macedonia directed toward the cooperation of the Bulgarian, Yugoslavian, and Greek Communist parties regarding the Macedonia National Question, a favorite child of Marxism. The upgrade of the Macedonian people to the Macedonian ethnicity was gradual and well planned.

The original Marxist ideology never created an ethnic group outright. Milovan Djilas explained, “[N]either Marxist literature nor anywhere else could I ever find an explanation of the difference between “people” and “nation”. For Stalin, the “nation” was the product of capitalism with given characteristics, but “people” are “the workingmen of a given nation, that is, workingmen of the same language, culture, and customs”. Stalin also admitted that Lenin introduced the definitions of both words in the book on “Marxism and National Question’ and although Lenin knew Marxism, Stalin did not (Djilas 1962, 156-7). The Comintern followed Marxism to the letter because Frederick Engels was explicit in his views on the natter (Engels 1884).

The creation of ethnic groups was gradual and based on ordinary people’s understanding, which had nothing to do with Marxist ideology. Briefly put, local and national figures of the communist parties slowly but surely developed implicitly misinterpreted twisted ideology promoting their nationalistic agendas at the expense of the original ideology.

The Anti-fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia supported the idea of a united Macedonia, a plan that went back to the Fifth World Congress of the Comintern; however, they also pushed the existence of a Macedonian nationality something that not part of the Marxism. They willfully misinterpreted Engels’ theory and followed Misirkov’s suggestion, although partially, as well. Also, ASNOM declared “Macedonian” to be the official language of the region, although at that time it did not differ at from the Western Bulgarian, which was spoken west of the line Nikopol (Nikopolis) - Goche Delchev (Nevrokopi). Also, the League of Communists of Yugoslavia encouraged the creation of Macedonian Institutions, Macedonian Literature and Art and in the 1960s standardized the language, which had little to do with the language Misirkov had mentioned. The development of a Macedonian national identity enacted a significant part along with Slovenia in the public policy toward Yugoslavia’s national relations. They both acted as a balance to the Serbian and Croatian political colossuses.

Macedonianism is rooted deeply in the soul of the Slavs reaching points that no other group has reached before and without any evidence or proof that they have direct lineage from the ancient Macedonians. Misirkov mentioned of a “Macedonian job” (Misirkov 1974, 119). Misirkov alluded to the Bulgarian Army Colonel and Supremist Anastas Yankov who in 1902 went with a reinforced Bulgarian Army Company to Kastoria to urge Bulgarians into an uprising; he issued a proclamation in which he called all Macedonians regardless of ethnicity and creed to rise against the Ottomans. In a concoction of historical personalities and events, he promoted “the glorious” Alexander the Great, “the brave” King Samuil and “the beautiful Pan-Slav” Prince Marko Kraljević, as having “Macedonian blood [running] in their veins”. One must have in mind that Alexander the Great was Greek, King Samuil was Bulgarian, and Marko Kraljević was Serb.​

​It is ironic that during the Macedonian Struggle the Bulgarian komitadjis did not recognize the Greek character of Macedonia even though it was inhabited by the descendants of Alexander’s the Great Macedonians. At the instructions of Imperial Russia and its Pan-Slavists, the Bulgarians refused to recognize the birthright of the Macedonian Greeks to their land (Ballas, 1962).

The followers of Vancho Mihailov’s ethnic philosophy who lived and still live mostly in the United States, Canada, Australia and consist of the most ultra-nationalist elements of Macedonianist philosophy. They still give an oath by placing their hand on a knife and pistol both placed on the Bible, although of the opinion of some “experts” the Bible is not required their клетви (kletvi) or oath. Basing their views of Yankov’s preaching, but also sheer logic faithful to the doctrine of “we cannot be without deriving our ancestry from the ancient Macedonians” started drawing membership and influence over their population abroad founding the foundations for ancestry and birthright over the land of Macedonia. Bulgaria had a lot to do with it.

Evangelos Kofos brings an excellent example depicting the extent of irrational and scientifically baseless assumptions, wishful hypotheses, and misrepresentations of facts by the FYROM Slavs, and although the official version does not adopt these ruminations, it does accept them by keeping silent (Templar 2008).

From Melbourne, Vic, Australia“… [O]nce we become Slavs we automatically lose any significance as descendants of the ancient Macedonians.... By calling ourselves Slavs we legalize this robbery by the Greeks [of the ancient Macedonians].... If we remain silent, we will remain Slavs, and as Slavs we have no legal right to anything Macedonian…" (Kofos 1993, 336).

Andrija Radović’s suggestions to the communists of the linguistic sacrifices of the Croats in the name of a South Slavic unity were also ineffective. In Radović’s opinion, what the Macedonists wanted was ethnocentric and wrong. As Vulić built his arguments on ancient history, Radović, a staunch unionist of Serbia and Montenegro, based his assertion on the compromise that the Croatian “Illyrian Movement” successfully advocated for the name of a united South Slavic state (Yugoslavia). The Croats had accepted the Štokavian/-ije dialect as their own language instead of the Zagreb Kajkavian, choosing a unifying factor over a divisive one, while the Macedonists favored the opposite (Katardzhiev 1986, 381-382 in S. Sfetas 2009, 281-297). The fact was that the Croats had adopted the Slavonian Ijekavian, a sub-dialect of the Što dialect of the Serbo-Croatian language as their literary language giving up the “Kaj proper” dialect, which is spoken in the areas between Zagreb and Hungary. Croats living in South Slovenia and western Croatia speak the south Slovenian Kaj whereas the Dalmatian Ikavian is spoken in Dalmatia, northwestern Herzegovina, and central Bosnia. The Ča dialects (Ča – jekav, Ča – ikav, Ča - ikavo-ekavian, Ča – ekav, Što - Čakavian – Ikavian) are spoken in Istria and the islands of the Adriatic Sea.

The National Question according to Kardelj

The USSR, the People’s Republic of China, and the SFRJ were the only countries that established communist rule without external assistance. The emergence of Kardelj as the innovator and proponent of Marxist theory blended with the issues that emerged during the Paris Commune shaped the fourth Yugoslavia. Kardelj and his cohorts started experimenting the “constitutive concept,” which regulated six constitutive nations (interpreted in the Marxist sense) inhabited by five constitutive narodi or peoples and as of 1968, by six narodi. In the constitutive concept, one considers reality, as is, a de facto situation, whereas in the regulatory concept one takes the reality as a guide for research the matter further.

The Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (FNRJ) (later the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ)) aka AVNOJ Yugoslavia was neither a federal nor a confederal state. It was a federative state with federal “units” forming a federative association. The word “federative,” in the parlance of AVNOJ Yugoslavia, meant a political status, which was looser than a confederation, but simultaneously united as a unitary nation-state. It means that in the same concept, each of the “units” or republics were considered independent nation-states voluntarily joined for the benefit of the people of the South Slavic commonwealth. It was something like the suggestion found in the first two verses of the Soviet national anthem but with a switch. [iii]

The difference was that the Soviet Union was created around Russia, whereas Yugoslavia had nothing genuinely centralized. The borders of each federal “unit” were never demarcated, which created problems and the war in 1991, the year that the state had died out.​

The boundaries of the federal units in federative Yugoslavia are not the boundaries of separation but the boundaries of a merger.” However, what was a “federal unit”? According to Tito, “a federal unit is not a braid of small states; the federation is more of an administrative character, a character of free cultural and economic development (Filipovic, 1977).

Indeed the federal “units”, i.e., republics were quite independent of each other and quite autonomous the greatest autonomy enjoyed by the federal republic of “Macedonia”, with their ministries save the defense to a point, monetary system, and foreign affairs, which belonged to the federative government. The framers had conceived Yugoslavia as a union of free, independent, and autonomous states having as their common goal the happiness of the Yugoslav people as they cooperated for the common good.

Under the Constitution of 1974, the Yugoslav federative state was a​

state union of voluntarily united peoples and their socialist republics as well as the socialist autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo which are within the Socialist Republic of Serbia, based on the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people and the socialist self-management democratic union of working people and citizens and equal peoples and ethnic groups.

As a soldier serving in the Greek Army at Polykastron, Kilkis, I often listened to radio stations in Yugoslavia. They were all public stations. Each radio station played the anthem of its choice to close the program of the day. Radio Belgrade played the national anthem “Hej Slaveni, Radio Skopje used “Denes nad Makedonija” and Radio Sarajevo preferred “L’ Internationale.”

The matter went downhill with a barrage of amendments that to the Constitution of 1963 unconsciously aiming at the disintegration of the federative republic. All these amendments were included in the Constitution of 1974.

The Constitution of February 21, 1974, among other things, included all the amendments which were accumulated during the period after the Constitution of April 7, 1963, while it introduced the consent of all republics and provinces in policymaking, including the decision to amend the Constitution. The latter defined the self-management interest of the communities comprehensively, but with a slight twist although closer to the communism as the Paris Commune had implemented. The Constitution emphasized and articulated the protection of self-management rights and government property as if it belonged to the Society. The new version of the Constitution introduced the position of the social defender of self-management and social property.

On April 22, 1977, a legal provision was added making the National Anthem “Hej Sloveni" ("Hey, Slavs") the official anthem of the Republic as well as the Coat-of-Arms, Flag. The Yugoslav state got its anthem only towards the end of its existence.

As if the above changes were not enough, the reform of the Yugoslav state continued with Amendments I-VIII which were adopted on July 3, 1981, contain the principles on collective labor and some administrative issues. These amendments were followed by Amendments IX-XLVIII, which were adopted on November 25, 1988, expanding the basis for the single Yugoslav market changing some rights of the loose Confederation.

Added to that, the modifications in the 1974 Constitution treated the two autonomous territories of Vojvodina and Kosovo as equal to the six units. Thus the loose confederation found itself with eight “units” and nine Presidents of equal value since an additional post in the collective presidency was created to accommodate the “Yugoslavs,” an “ethnicity” for anyone who for whatever reason did not want to belong to a specific national group. That was the arranged solution to the eternal national question of the Marxist state. The government in Belgrade did not have real powers, and that was obvious during the meeting of the nine heads of the “units” whom to be elected the position of the head of state had to receive the minimal support of the majority, i.e., five votes. That regardless whose turn for the post it was. That brought the end of Yugoslavia in May 1991.

The passports of AVNOJ Yugoslavia did not include any statement of nationality since the word nationality within Yugoslavia had a different connotation from the one used in international law. Internationally “nationality” is a loose term of citizenship. In AVNOJ, Yugoslavia meant, a group of people belonging to a constitutive federal unit.

Kardelj established the institution of “Public Defense and Social Self-defense” (Opštenarodna odbrana i društvena samozaštita) as Yugoslavia evolved. It empowered the federal republics to have an Army of their own. Thus, each republic had a government with standing reserve troops ready to defend their own territory. However, if one adds to the aforementioned the right of the federal republics to self-determination including the right to secede as restrictive the implementation of the right as it was, it created the basis for the disintegration of the federative state even if that meant war between the federal republics.

Without getting into ideological details of AVNOJ Yugoslavia, the founders proved to be excellent idealists, but politically naïve and inexperienced. They created the impasse that pushed AVNOJ Yugoslavia to its extinction. The AVNOJ leadership experimented the validity of the Marxist theory as they understood it, and while they unraveled the theory, they kept modifying concepts without considering clashes produced by such modifications with already existing public policies.

Conclusion

It would be naïve for one to believe that the ideological naiveté that led to the political implosion of Yugoslavia was the only factor leading to the dismemberment of the country. Other internal and external factors also contributed to the withering away of the state. However, the loss of the political cohesion was the fundamental issue. All this time the USSR was sawing the Yugoslav state by supporting various extremist groups of the Yugoslav “units” abroad. An adage states, “Be careful when you are digging a grave for someone else. You just might be digging it for yourself”. The USSR found out about it.

AVNOJ Yugoslavia collapsed because of the manner the state was put together, the theory of Engels and let evolve accordingly.

Thereafter, the disintegration of SFRJ was not a matter of supposition, but a matter of time. Yugoslavia does not exist anymore because the “union” was imposed from above. On the other hand those states the people of which were mostly homogenous populations or they are truly formed out of the will of the people last.

​“The state is not ‘abolished’. It dies out”.

______________________________________

​[i] Marx and Engels generally used the word "nation" in its English and French meaning to designate the permanent population of a nation-state. The term "nationality," however, was used in its Central and Eastern European denotation, to designate an ethno-cultural community that had not achieved full national status because it lacked a state of its own (Rosdolsky, 1965, 337).

In Marx' and Engels' works, "nationalities" will either become "nations" by acquiring a state of their own (Poland, Ireland), or alternatively they are said to be "historyless peoples" (Geschichtslosen Völker), national communities that lack "historical vitality" because of their inability to consolidate a national state. For Marx and Engels, these "non-historical nationalities" are intrinsically reactionary because of their inability to adapt to the capitalist mode of production. This is because their survival is only guaranteed in the old order; so, by necessity, they have to be regressive to avoid extinction.

Consequently, modern nations are for Marx and Engels what we today call "nation states": ethno-cultural and linguistic communities with their own state. Nationalities are ethno-cultural and linguistic groups not developed into full nations because they lack their own state. This model of national formation is greatly inspired by the historical development of the French and, to a lesser extent, the British case, which by nature of being "the most advanced nations" must serve as a model for "less developed" national communities (Nimni, fall 1989).

[ii] AVNOJ is the Serbo-Croatian acronym for Antifašističko veće narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije or Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia. It was the political umbrella organization of resistance against the Axis, established in Bihać on November 26, 1942.

As U.S. citizens concerned about stability in the south Balkan Peninsula, we are opposed to the inclusion of the name “Macedonia” or “Macedonian” in the final name of "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (The FYROM). Although local solutions are significant as they contribute to the global stability one must consider the political and social reality in the specific region. The present political values in the FYROM do not support conditions needed to improve functional neighborly relations between the latter and Greece.​The Greek region of Macedonia, due to its natural resources and the geographical position has become a tempting prize to be won by conquest either through invasions with consequent devastation or through political posturing. In fact, politicians of neighboring countries set as an objective the establishment of a foundation of descent and birthright to eventually claim over the land which for 4,000 years has been by inheritance Greek. Indeed, in the last two centuries, the Greek region of Macedonia has confronted belligerent predisposition to include but not limited to demographic manipulations, historical forgeries, relentless disinformation, and even abduction along with indoctrination of Greek children to communism.

While it is paramount that the name dispute of the FYROM must be solved the soonest, it also imperative that such an agreement must be devoid of unfair and misleading terms that appear durable and overtly bestow hope for stability, while in fact, they uncover to be awash of instability. Such a solution is imperative so that both sides should benefit from it without endangering the national security and territorial integrity of Greece any time the FYROM changes governments. It is essential that designations such as nationality, ethnicity, heritage, culture, identity and any other description presently linked to the name “Macedonia” and its derivatives follow the final name of the FYROM as international law and norms prescribe.

Since previous governments of the FYROM had created a national amnesia that causes them to forget who and what they are through malfeasance, the responsibility to educate their citizens regarding their Slavic heritage lingers on the present administration. We are urging all powers involved to offer their good offices for a just solution considering the reasons behind our objection. The path that the forefathers of the Slav inhabitants of the FYROM had carved remains unaltered at present with the excuse that the name for their ethnicity is “Macedonian” which is the only one they know since their birth. The reality is that they have changed their ethnic designation a few times during the 20th century.

We are opposed to the name “Macedonia” even if it follows a geographic designation that would allow the FYROM explicitly or implicitly the derivative “Macedonian.” Such demands provide an indirect but particular path to the inherent right to claim the land of their imaginary ancient ancestors.

​It is routinely publicized that the Peace Treaty of Bucharest split "Macedonia" into three segments. According to this information, Greece received 51.56%, Serbia 38.32%, and Bulgaria 10.12%. The above information is incorrect, because it is based on false assumptions. Over 90% of true Macedonia is within Greece.​If by Macedonia one considers the conquest of the area of ancient Paionia (i.e. the FYROM), following the same logic one has to consider Afghanistan as being Macedonia, as well. Macedonia is considered only the region that at the ancient times was inhabited by the Macedonian Greeks. Conquests are temporary; they do not count.

>> FIRST ASSUMPTION: the Existence of the "Macedonian" People in 1913

One of the main cries of the FYROM Slavs is that Greece denies the existence of the "Macedonian" people. The FYROM historians claim that the "Macedonians" are the ones who created the Ilinden Uprising, but as we saw above, the insurgents were Bulgarians living in geographic Macedonia. Not one of them was ethnic "Macedonian." The FYROM Slavs further state that the Carnegie report uses the term "Macedonian" in an ethnic sense.

However, the Carnegie report refers only to the Bulgarians and Greeks living in Macedonia. When the report suggests the adjective "Macedonian," it clearly means and without any exception all inhabitants of Macedonia in the spirit of the Manifesto of Krushevo. As pointed out above, the Slavic people of Macedonia kept declaring themselves ethnically Bulgarian. Brailsford, in his famous book regarding Macedonia, used the term Macedonian as a geographic term that encompassed Turks, Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Gypsies, Jews, Dönme, and others. >> SECOND ASSUMPTION: The Treaty split Macedonian Territories in 1913 The area of Macedonia would have been "51.56% to Greece, 38.32% to Serbia, 10.12% to Bulgaria" if Macedonia included the FYROM areas north of Gradsko and Bakarno Gumno - Krushevo. Nevertheless, that is not the case.

Dr. Fanula Papazoglu stated that Macedonia's territory reached as north as the area of Bakarno Gumno in the towns of Krushevo and Prilep, which means that the areas north of Gradsko were not included in Macedonia even in modern times. If the whole area of the FYROM was within Macedonia in 1913 when the Treaty of Bucharest was signed, is it not interesting that the borders were moved in 1917 and later by 100 kilometers to the south? Taking into consideration the above, one could argue that the division was more or less 70% to Greece, 11 % to Bulgaria, and 16% to Serbia and a strip of 3% to Albania." The Academy of Athens elevates the territories of the Macedonian Homeland belonging presently to Greece to 90%.

In the same interview, Fanula Dimitriou-Papazoglou told the author that before WWII Skopje was an Old Serbian town and the Capital of the pre-War Vardarska Banovina. She also stated that the only reason for it being the capital of the newly emerged People's Republic of Macedonia was that it was the largest city in the area. Bitola was too small.

Photo credit: Public Domain | Territorial Modifications in the Balkans according to the Treaty of Bucharest

Immediately after the division of the Ottoman vilayets of Selanik and Manastir, the Greek government established the "General Administration of Macedonia" for its part of Macedonia, officially recognizing and utilizing the term Macedonia first after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. “The Treaty of Neuilly of 1919 ‘corrected’ the few errors of the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913 and re-christened Serbia's and Greece's part of Macedonia South Serbia and Northern Greece respectively.”

​>> THIRD ASSUMPTION: The Treaty of Bucharest has an expiry

The FYROM Slavs created this assumption for internal consumption starting with the misinterpretation of President Gligorov's statement requesting the revision of the Treaty of Bucharest, but externally it indicates ignorance because treaties setting borders are permanent. The only treaties that include in their text an expiry are treaties of leasing with a usual clause of 99 years.

In order for the treaty of Bucharest to be officially re-visited, it would require all signatory countries to exclusively agree to it, something that would be nearly impossible since many countries' national interests and their stability would be directly or indirectly affected. Since this Treaty is one of the fundamental treaties that set some of the borders in the Balkans, a revision or re-negotiation of the treaty would set a chain reaction that would invalidate or alter successive treaties. In the end, the opening and renegotiation of the treaty would not guarantee that the FYROM would gain territories, nor would it guarantee the FYROM's own existence. ​

"During the meeting of the Political Secretariat of the Balkan Regional Section on January 11, 1934, the Comintern established the resolution on "The Macedonian Question and the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization - United (IMRO-U)" under protocol No 207. The Balkan secretariat filed the resolution for its records under log No 815 on on 23 February 1934, i.e. two days before Dimitrov reached Moscow - on 25 February 1934. It is mentioned as one of the most important documents for the creation of the Macedonian nation-state aka the Balkan Federation."

By Marcus A. Templar – U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist, and All-Source Intelligence Analyst of the Defense Intelligence Agency (Retd.)

EMF Conference 5-7 December 2016, Larnaca, Cyprus

Turkey’s internal and foreign policies are a result of national personality shaped by Turkey’s strategic culture. This culture is characterised by uncertainty and insecurity. The former is reflected in Turkey’s fixation with unity in homogeneity, culture and sameness, while the latter in a conspiratorial mindset, distrust, and militarization. Marcus A. Templar explores the reasons behind Turkey’s strategic culture, and helps explain certain continuity and pattern in Turkey’s behaviour, which occurs regardless of time and its political system.

​In published declarations, the so-called Australian Macedonian[sic] Communities of Western Australia (hence AMCWA) falsely claim events, statements, and hidden agendas of the Greek diaspora and the Greek government. As the late U.S. Senator Patrick Moynihan once stated, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” In such tapestry of disinformation, misinformation, fairy tale, and myth the AMCWA identify the national interests of the Australian government with the national interests of the FYROM. All this is done at the mercy of truths only known to the FYROM citizens and diaspora.

Starting with facts, Greece is a politically unitary country, which for administrative purposes, governments change districts as sees it fit. Borders of districts do not reflect externally recognized boundaries as it happened in the former Yugoslavia. Northern Greece is a geographical term, which includes the regions of Macedonia and Western Thrace. At present, Eastern Macedonia and Western Thrace make up one administrative unit while Central, and Western Macedonia make up the other two.

Click to enlarge map

​The Bulgarian Vasil Kanchov (Kanchev) designed the map that included the area of the FYROM in Macedonia in 1900 under orders from Sofia. Commenting on such a map, H. R. Wilkinson stated, “the validity of Kanchev’s concept of Macedonia as a geographical region depends on upon the criteria used to measure regional affinities” (H. R. Wilkinson 1952, 392). The present map of Greater Macedonia is the approximate equivalent of Kanchev’s map. After 1918, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes called the area of the FYROM South Serbia and later Governorate of Vardar.

The Greek region of Macedonia in modern times obtained its official name administratively in 1914 two years after its liberation by Greece, 30 years before the dictator Tito baptized it during the Yugoslav area. It is interesting that while the FYROM Slavs describe the Greek region of Macedonia as “Northern Greece,” they convert the same region to “Macedonia” when it appears within the map of Greater Macedonia. The FYROM Slavs perceive the acronym “The FYROM” as derogatory because they seem to get self-gratification when they hear or read the word 'Macedonia.'

The fact is that the FYROM and its Slavic diaspora want to monopolize the term Macedonia as if this term exclusively belongs to them. The etymology of the Greek tribe “Macedonians” goes back long before the Trojan War, about 1500 BC. Homer, who wrote in the Aeolic dialect of Chios, offers us “the leaves of a tall poplar tree” (Odyssey 7:106). The Greek presence in Macedonia Proper and the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians are tendered by Strabo 7. Frag. 9, “Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece"; Eusebius, 227; Paterculus I, 6, 5; Pausanias VI, 22; Herodotus VII.176; Thucydides VII. 57; IV 42.2; III.102; Strabo, VII.6; Herodotus VIII. 137-139; Aeschylus, Suppliant Women 255; Heurtley, BSA 32 (1931), 131-179; Stephanus Byzantius, s.v. Makedon, the Rosetta Stone, and Katadesmos.

Although the adjective “Macedonian” always applied to all inhabitants of Macedonia as a regional name and not an ethnic one, the Third Communist International invented the “Macedonian” ethnicity for strictly political reasons on January 11, 1934 (Misirkov 1974, 158-9; Vlahov 1970, 21, 22, 357; Bechev 2009, XXX-XXXI).

The AMCWA claim that the name of their home country is “Macedonia”[sic] and not the FYROM. The fact according to UNSC the name is “‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State,” Similarly, the symbol of the Sun of Vergina has been deemed a Greek symbol by the UNSC (UNSC Res. 817 (1993).

In a mirror image experience, the AMCWA condemn Greek associations for not following the policy of Greece, i.e. compromise on the name issue. Since when any FYROM organization and government have become advocates of compromise? A compromise is the result of mutuality. Nothing thus far has indicated that the FYROM and its diaspora are willing to compromise. The mere fact that they are glued to the “Republic of Macedonia” indicates an unpromising position. Greece has been very accommodating and generous to the FYROM by giving to the FYROM about 90% of what the FYROM sought, including an exit to the Aegean Sea through the port facilities in Thessaloniki.

Given the fact that the FYROM Slavs have full voting rights in the old country by Article 4 of the FYROM Constitution and the Law on Citizenship, the diaspora is an extension of their home country abroad acting as a proxy of the FYROM policy, which stands on a non-compromise strategy of obstructiveness. The AMCWA even ignore the UNSC directive that maintains the FYROM “shall cease to use in any way the symbol in all its forms displayed on its national flag,” i.e. the Sun of Vergina (Interim Agreement, Article 7.2).

However, the AMCWA might not be the peace-loving cultural organization that promotes itself. Through maps of a Greater Macedonia and the branding of the Sun of Vergina on its letterhead, the organization concurrently promotes irredentism and instills ethnic hate to their offspring.

Click to enlarge map

Looking at expansionist maps of Greater Macedonia and Sun of Vergina flags demonstrated in classrooms, parades, and social events, even in churches, one cannot but conclude the incitement of hate and, also, future territorial claims in an official capacity. Regressing to the period before ​the 1982 Falkland Islands invasion by Argentina, we attest that similar publications had appeared in Argentina before the war because the Argentine had placed the mentality of the Argentinean people and encouraged the regime to attack a British territory. "A generation of schoolchildren had been taught that the Malvinas were Argentine. Postage stamps proclaimed that the Islands were a part of the Argentine Republic. Argentine maps labeled the Islands as "occupied territory" (LCDR Chenette, U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College, 1987). No Constitution of any country states that the national goal is to claim neighboring land. It happens over time through Executive or Parliamentary decisions. Article 3 of the FYROM Constitution allows for such a change.

The 1934 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Article 3, is explicit, “the political existence of a state is independent of recognition by the other states.” It means that the FYROM’s existence is independent of the number of the countries that recognize it, one of which is Greece. Greece recognizes the FYROM’s political existence by the ruling of the UNSC in which Greece and the FYROM had to solve their differences “in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region (UNSC Res. 817 (1993)).

Since the FYROM provisionally was admitted to the UN, any modification in that name forfeits the terms of its admission to the UN. By the way, a municipality regardless of its size is not a contracting state to “recognize” a country. Only naïve people believe it. Australia is not Bulgaria and the year is not 1885. The only legal entity that has authority over issues of international law is the federal government of Australia. In any respect, the FYROM is not “Macedonia” unless Greece says so.

Two peoples in the Balkans, the Bulgarians, and the FYROM Slavs share language, heroes, heritage, including churches and yet, while the Bulgarians are Slavs, the AMCWA want the world to believe that they are not Slavs, but “ethnic” Macedonians[sic]. Denko Maleski, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the FYROM (1991-1993) and ambassador to the UN (1993-1997), stated on the matter, “There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when a falsification was made by substituting the word Bulgarian with the word Macedonian[sic]. However, whenever that was impossible, historical figures were declared to be Bulgarian agents who somehow had entered into a created pure imaginary Macedonian[sic] space.” (Denko Maleski, Utrinski Vesnik, March 03, 2007).

In another point of a nationalistic mirage, the AMCWA claim that “a large minority of ethnic Macedonians[sic] populates Northern Greece.” In the 2009 European elections that took place in Greece with 9,995,992 countrywide registered voters and out of 5,261,036 actual votes cast, the ethnic FYROM Rainbow Party aka Vinozhito tallied 4,530 votes or 0.0008629% of the votes cast. Such numbers are a little bit short of the claimed “large ethnic Macedonian[sic] population,” i.e. Slavic minority inhabiting Greece.

The essential difference between nationalism and patriotism is that in nationalism one wants to take land which belongs to one’s neighbor, whereas in patriotism one wants to keep what is one’s own. The FYROM diaspora promotes maps of a Greater Macedonia, which claim lands from all adjacent countries and especially Greece and demonstrate the Sun of Vergina. As for the contributions of the 60,000 FYROM diaspora of Australia might be great, but it cannot offset the impact that the 550,000 strong Greek diaspora has in the Australian society and politics.

------------------------------------------------------------

About Marcus A. Templar

Marcus A. Templar has served in the U.S. Army as a cryptologic linguist, military intelligence instructor, and all source / SIGINT analyst. His academic research includes the political ideology of Bulgarian intellectuals in Macedonia after the Commune of Paris and the effect of their ideology to the establishment, development, and activities of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) aka VMRO.

​It is common sense for a country (regardless of the political ideology of its people) to unite on issues of importance regarding national security and national interests. One expects political divisions in a country, but to my knowledge, in no other country in the world do domestic political quarrels transcend common sense to the point of stupidity as in Greece. It seems as though the national goal of the ‪Greek people is the obliteration of Greece. Local political divides should and must stop at the borders of the country!

Because foreign policy encompasses a country’s national security and its national interests, it should be national, cohesive, and coherent, with all parties adhering to it. International law based on diplomatic instruments affects domestic policies and legislation and, of course, the life of the citizens of a country. Such important documents usually do not see the light of day in the Greek Parliament. In my view, the most important document of modern Greece that has hit the heart of Greece’s national security and territorial integrity – the 1995 Interim Agreement between Greece and the FYROM – in violation of Article 28 of the Constitution was bypassed and never ratified by the Parliament. To my knowledge, not one politician of any party yelled, “Foul.” The Constitution provides for ministerial decisions only when referring to secondary rules of law or administrative matters such as recruitment, dismissal, promotion, transfer agents, definition guarantees, etc. These are simply executive decisions. But the Parliament must ratify treaties, conventions and such!

Every single political party has had its own ideas on how to save the country by essentially staying on the sidelines and using emotion and ideology instead of knowledge, experience, and critical thinking. By remaining on the sidelines, the Greeks have allowed others to write the rules, leaving the Greek people to swallow the excuse: “We are a small country; the great powers write the rules!”

No party should monopolize Greece’s foreign policy!

We pride ourselves on the fact that we gave ‪Democracy to the world. Although I agree that this is the case, I would argue that we never kept that idea for ourselves. Demagoguery, anarchy, personal attacks are not part of democracy; they are part of the chaos, and it is why Greece has not only failed: she has defeated herself!

The voters of Greece vote for incompetent politicians who choose advisors according to their image, equally ignorant and inept. Of them, the elected ministers are as irrelevant to the post they are serving as the leader of the governing party. These inept nickel-and-dime politicians represent the country abroad also!

On the other hand, foreign officials place the right people in the right place, knowing well the subject matter for discussion and decision. They even prepare detail biographical summaries of their contacts before they meet, in order to know with whom they are dealing.

Greek politicians have no knowledge to juxtapose any arguments of their collocutors to the defense of the country’s position, or even to promote Greece’s positions. They represent Greece’s national interests unprepared, like a lamb on its way to the slaughterhouse. They are more concerned about being team players and declaring unearned “victories,” rather than taking care of the country’s national interests. Often, they will even agree with the position of the foreign dignitaries, citing as an excuse: “If I do as I feel I should, I will not be re-elected!” A negative and spineless performance. Why is this happening?

Perceptions of reality, more so than objective reality, are crucial to the decisions of public officials. What policymakers believe to have taken place in any given case is what matters, more so than what happened: “The key is perception, the process by which decision-makers detect and assign meaning to inputs from their environment and formulate their purposes and intents” (Ole Holsti 1968, 128). Such perceptions created by Skopje and its Pan-Slavist friends invigorate and jolt the morale of the FYROM Slavs, while they simultaneously demoralize the Greeks, especially in these trying times of significant domestic upheaval that keep the Greek government busy with many more important and traumatic issues.

We are all familiar with the Asia Minor Catastrophe. It must become a lesson to avoid recurrence. We cannot blame a single political party for the constant failure of Greece’s foreign policy, just as we cannot blame unknown dark forces lurking to crush the Greeks because … “they are jealous of Greece” or “they want to destroy us!”

Greeks are the sole custodian of Greece’s national interests, territorial integrity, and national security. No one else is!

However, the issue is much deeper. The national security strategy – as the country envisions its full strategic spectrum – requires it to answer two questions: “What is it in our interest to prevent? What should we seek to accomplish?” (Kissinger 1969, 92).

Since the fall of the junta in 1974, the Greek Establishment, i.e. the Political Elite and the mass media, have done an awful job in governing the country and informing the people. The political elite, whether as government or as “the loyal opposition,” have done nothing to elevate the ideals of its offspring; instead they have managed to kill any vision possible in the name of populism and personal promotion. “Where there is no vision, the people perish” KJV, Proverbs 29:18). They have defrauded the Greek nation!

The Establishment is entirely responsible for creating a nation of people with no common sense by repeating the same mistakes over-and-over, while expecting different results; embracing an attitude of self-righteousness, disobedience, narcissism, and self-pity as justification for its errors. The Establishment furthermore has succeeded in molding selfish, ignorant, gullible, and title-decorated, but uneducated grinning individuals who throw their “smart” one-liners and memorized punch lines indicating blunt acumen. Instead of understanding the message and acting accordingly, they choose to smear the reputation of the messenger in an attempt to sidetrack their collocutor from the issue at hand. The Greek Establishment has betrayed the trust of the Greek nation!

Politicians have claimed that during the dictatorship Greece’s economy was in shambles. The fact is that when the country returned to democracy in 1974, Greece had a surplus of 178 million U.S. dollars. Within five years (in 1980), Greece accumulated a debt equal to 22.60% of its GDP, to the point of about 180% in 2015 (TradingEconomics.com). How can any politician explain this mess?

The mass media, being narrowly partisan and incredibly dogmatic, preferred to keep silent – worse yet, it launched attacks against those who dared to voice a differing opinion on the detriment of Greek society by denouncing them with appellations, such as “Μακεδονομάχος,” and making patriotism an insult. Whenever politicians exercised their constitutional right to disagree with the “infallible leader” of their party, the mass media, as the “leader” of free speech, termed those individuals a “δελφίνος”, thus conveniently creating conditions under which responsible politicians were forced to perjure themselves (Constitution Articles 59.1 and 60.1).

Although the mass media members recognized that something was wrong, rather than correct the situation, they engaged in smearing the reputations of honest patriots. Even people of the cloth were attacked for loving their homeland. The political inclinations of the media moguls received more consideration, as did the pressure from political clowns, to whom the members of the media bowed, disregarding their duty to inform and not misinform. They intentionally misled the public’s expectations and eradicated its dreams. They have deceived the Greek nation!

Day in and day out, the Greek Establishment has created new standards, degrading Greece’s already weak position even further. Not one government of Greece has fully cherished or suitably utilized the geostrategic importance of the country! Their understanding of geostrategic importance covers geographical position and physiography. They have completely ignored the importance of the ethnic cohesion of the population. It is the same with education, standard of living, and trends, as population values develop within their domain. In addition, the same governments have overlooked the proper use of resources to the point of negligence, and even deliberate indifference, “according to their private ambition and covetousness, perniciously both for themselves and their confederates” (Thucydides II.65.7). Two and a half millennia ago, the conduct of the Athenian politicians that led their city to its near annihilation should be a lesson for us (Xenophon, Hellenica, 2.2.19-23). We had a chance to learn from it and change. But nobody cared.

The condition of the Greek nation abroad is not any different. We have one of the largest Diasporas in the United States, but there is an un-utilized great national power – soft power (electorate, culture, and history) and hard power (economic means) – to influence the attitude of the American establishment. The Jews, Turks, Skopjans, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, and other groups, which are even smaller in number than us – except for the Jews – have trumped us. Instead of looking for allies, we resort to castigating them. What are they doing wrong? They do what they can for their homeland or for the land of their ancestry; the question is: What are we doing for ours? My suggestion does not imply prima facie alliances; but genuine and profound coalitions, working daily for the betterment of our nation, and turning alliances into lasting friendships!

Every Tom, Dick and Harry mentions our powerful lobby – not out of respect, but as a matter of mockery! We have a warped sense of reality that embodies an individualistic discernment, a local view, and a partisan perception of Greece’s present, rather than the interest to work together on a collective foresight, an ethnic perspective, and a national vision of Greece’s future!

After Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, we saw the arms embargo on Turkey lifted barely a few years later, while the blockade of weapons on the victim, Cyprus, was lifted only a couple of years ago. Since 1974, time-and-again, Turkey has been playing games and exhibits its military might against Greece and Cyprus. And when we complain to U.S. officials, they cite Turkey’s strategic location as the excuse. We are even incapable of reversing Turkey's seclusion of Famagusta!

Albania shifted the very legitimate agreement it made on the sea delineation with Greece to reflect its sole interests – at the expense of Greece. We have seen Skopje do whatever it pleases. We see countries that Greece has helped toward gaining membership to international organizations (e.g. Slovenia), turn around and support the Skopjans in their bidding. We have sensed the new awakening of Pan-Slavism with Russia, its originator, leading the way (Vlček 2002, 43; Koliševski 1980, 152; Jelavich 1958, 12-13). It is time now for us to wake up and smell the coffee!

Our rivals have dynamic advocacy groups, which work in educating politicians and honest citizens. They use periodicals of national scale in the United States, Canada and Australia disseminating “truths” as they see them. But when and if we utilize our experts, they lecture the Greek Diaspora, preaching in essence to the choir, while leaving politicians and citizens at the mercy of our rivals’ activism!

Lobbying, advocacy, and public relations to the untrained mind might sound similar: but they are neither identical nor are they interchangeable. While “Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics” (Public Relations Society of America - PRSA) requiring many smiles, lobbying (direct or grassroots) along with advocacy, they also entail empirical and academic expertise in various dimensions of particular subject matters and their cognate fields. They are the result of a team effort of experts in all, even remotely related, aspects. They all require much money, imagination, and, most of all, critical thinking – and not the harbored sickening ambition of an overinflated ego of a single omniscient Greek. One size fits all does not do it either. The most important elements that people ignore are a low profile and, when possible, secrecy. That is how a fait accompli materializes!

Should Greece “import” a government? One doubts whether the present Establishment would allow Greeks from abroad to take over ministries relevant to the professional background of the “invaders” to fix the mess which the system has created and nurtured for years. Assuming that this could be the case, the “imported” Greeks, by applying their know-how and their skills of handling the job uncontaminated by corruptive ministries, would prove the incompetence of professional politicians. Greece, to the detriment of those who pretend to be the political elite of Greece, would never be the same!

Currently, Greece does not qualify as a functioning state. Briefly, a state’s obligations toward its citizens include – but are not limited -- to providing security for its people, as well as equal protection under the law, and services, such as the infrastructure that promote an individual's human rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Citizens finance these obligations of the state through taxation, expecting a reasonably professional civil service in return. This is not happening in Greece. Employment through individual merit is an unknown commodity in the country! Cronyism, nepotism, patronage, influence-peddling, graft, and even embezzlement are means available to citizens for employment. But even if a politician wants to work for the people, as politicians are supposed to, they will be attacked from all sides, because what they’re doing is against the established system!

Most of the so-called representatives of the Greek Parliament are treated as monarchs, if we apply the definition of heredity by blood or marriage. Also, they and their friends enjoy a lifetime-immunity that exempts them from any criminal act during their thieving career (or they may simply by-pass legal proceedings). Worst of all is that they do not even represent the areas they claim to. They are accountable for their district of residence, i.e. Athens. It is precisely why, by far, most of the representatives in the Greek Parliament own homes in Attica. Greek ministries and their employees see Greece as starting in Thebes and ending in Corinth. And the people of Greece do not see the fruits of their paid taxes, since, by far, most of the tax money stays in Athens for the benefit of Attica!

In any event, the problem lies with the voters of Greece. The people of Greece are delusional in creating facts in their minds out of hot air. They support those self-sought “realities,” and when such “realities” do not materialize, they point to conspiracies and foreign inimical groups and governments (e.g. the Americans, the Zionists), making them the cause of their discontent. What has happened to voter responsibility? Worst of all is that those who manage Greece's crisis - products of the delusions themselves - are in turn deceived as well. Thus far, they have offered solutions that are simple improvisations, patchworks, serving nothing and creating havoc. They fail to understand why the country is hit from every direction as they lie in their world of a tested and failed political and economic system of yesteryear. They have no idea whether they are coming or going. They have reached the stage of Nirvana hoping for the best. The problem is that Nirvana means “blown out, extinguished.” They have missed the personal and political responsibility to their country and to their nation!

What Greece needs is business and financial development, since “personal freedom and ownership are the fundamental elements of prosperity, which advance the consolidation of human capital and education. Those two components promote science, technology, and innovation. The last three elements, developed to a balanced and stable economic growth, are relevant to national security. They are part of the Greek psyche.” (Templar 2014). Greece’s foreign and domestic policies need to change. Ideals, aka values such as “Justice, Personal Freedom, Ownership, and Honor,” determined the goals that the developing independent Greek nation had hoped to achieve, so that its offspring could physically and psychologically feel secure and prosperous. Once such ideals are dead, the Hellenic nation is dead as well. It is time for the Greeks to wake up! The coffee is brewing to unsettle last night’s (decades old) stupor from too much ouzo!

-------------------------------------------------

About Marcus A. Templar

Marcus Alexander Templar is a former codebreaker and Principal Subject Matter Expert in Intelligence Analysis. During his military career, he has supported intelligence operations on a national level, and served as instructor in a number of U.S. Intelligence Schools.

His academic research includes the political ideology of Bulgarian intellectuals after the Commune of Paris and the effect of their ideology to the establishment, development, and activities of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization aka VMRO. The research also examines the organization’s activities in order to create a communist regime of the Bulgarians in Macedonia at least 20 years before the founding of the USSR. More specifically, his work analyzes the relationship and interaction among members and factions of the organization with contemporary political, pan-Slavic movements and governments, as well as the organization’s political and terrorist activities. Pedagogically he is interested in matters of national security, public governmental policy, and strategy.

He holds a BA from Western Illinois University in the social sciences and humanities (Macomb, Illinois), Master's degree from Northeastern Illinois University in Human Resource Development (Chicago, Illinois) and a second Masters in Strategic Intelligence from the National Intelligence University (Washington, DC) specializing in the southern Balkans and Turkey.

"Although most experts would ascribe the strategic culture of Turkey to the events that took place between the armistice at Mudros (October 30, 1918) and the Treaty of Sevres (August 10, 1920), the cause for Turkey's strategic culture goes back to the 18th century. The Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca signed on July 21, 1774 established peace between Imperial Russia and the Ottoman Empire after their conflict of 1768-74. However, the Great Powers of the time habitually intervened in the domestic affairs of the Ottoman State, and later Empire, under one pretext or another imposing their will in accordance with their own national interests.

The then Great Powers (Britain, Russia, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy) did not just interfere in the domestic affairs of the Ottoman State, but made decisions over the sovereignty of the state and even carved and shared territories without consideration for the Sultan. The powers agreed to the need of political reforms both in Bosnia (Austro-Hungarian interest), but also in the Ottoman territories in which their majority had Bulgarian population (Russian interest). Through wars, Russia succeeded in claiming the Ottoman provinces of Kars and Batumi in the Caucasus and gave autonomy or independence to principalities, especially to Christian nations."

This paper focuses only on the revolt of July 20, 1903 (old style) or August 2, 1903 (new style) in the town of Krushevo as implemented by the original left wing of the IMRO also known as Ilinden or the Day of St. Elijah. Any other information offered in this paper is pertinent only for the reader’s understanding of the stage set before the revolt. It is not a paper regarding the organization of the IMRO or its history nor is it about the events outside the surrounding areas of the town of Krushevo.

Some of the real names of people involved might be different from those in this paper. The difference lies on the sources involved and their understanding of the persons’ genealogy. For instance, Kirov-Majski presents the name of Dimitri Gulis as Pitu Gulyev. He does not specify his ethnicity. Ditsias presents him as a Vlach speaking Greek whereas other sources considers him a Romanian inclined Vlach. While Distias offers a close view of the events, Naltsas is more distant describing the events in Macedonia from the general point of view. Ballas is as detailed as Ditsias.

Kirov-Majski, Ballas, Naltsas, Ditsias, Kavangelis, and the letter of the Greek Consul General in Monastiri have the main population of Krushevo as Greek. Some of them clarify them as Vlach-speaking Greeks and some just Greeks. So, I have decided to sometimes refer to them as Greeks or as Vlach-speaking Greeks (Kirov-Majski 1935, 19). Ballas speaks of Greco-vlach dialect of the Krushevo Greeks (Ballas 1962, 34).

Background Information

The “Grandfather” of the Socialist movement in Bulgaria was Dimitar Blagoev Nikolov. Blagoev was born on June 14, 1856 in the town of Zagorichani of the Ottoman Empire, present day Vasiliada, Kastoria Prefecture of the region of Macedonia, Greece where he received his elementary education. His father was Vangel Minasov, a poor peasant who went to Constantinople as a migrant worker (John D. Bell, 1986, 4).

In 1868, Georgi “Dinka” Konstantinov, a Bulgarian communist who had recently studied in Russia, took the position of the village teacher in Zagorichani where he planted more than the “first seeds of human consciousness” in the hearts of his young pupils. He transplanted the roots of communism. He was the one who introduced Blagoev to revolutionary and socialist ideas (K. N. Derzhavin 1962, 71-72. 27, 71; compare D. Daskalov 1971, 2, 98-106; G. Bakalov 1960), 363-92; Pundeff Sep. 1971, 523-550; 532).

For his revolutionary activities, Konstantinov was expelled from the village two years later, in 1870. According to Blagoev’s memoirs, Bulgarian propagandists influenced him in the idea of the Bulgarian National Revival (part of the Slavic Awakening) (D. Blagoev 1926, 1). By the age of 27, Blagoev was a full-fledged communist.

On October 23, 1893 in the city of Thessaloniki (presently the capital of the Greek Macedonia), Damian Gruev, Goce Delcev, Ivan Hadzhinikolov, Petar Poparsov, Andon Dimitrov, and Hristo Batandzhiev founded the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople (Thrace). Revolutionary Organization (IMRO, VMRO in Bulgarian). Goce Delcev, a communist, was the ideologue and the organizer of the IMRO. He was a great opponent of the implants of the Bulgarian government in the IMRO. He was a member of the Central Committee of the IMRO from its foundations to his death (Koliševski 1980, 227).

The year 1885 was beneficial for Bulgaria since, in September by unifying with Eastern Rumelia, the principality more than doubled its size. Now, the next step in the Bulgarian agenda was to achieve the final step to its national unification with Macedonia. It would try to do the same with Macedonia as it did with Eastern Rumelia. Various groups were formed having in just that in mind. As expected, Blagoev mingled among his compatriots who grouped together in an organization called “Macedonian Voice” (Makedonskii glas) and published a newspaper under the same name advocating the liberation of their homeland at the first opportunity.

Given the opportunity, Blagoev published his first article in Bulgaria, "The Balkan Federation and Macedonia," written in a panegyric atmosphere of 1885 before the events of the Eastern Rumelia’s unification with the principality. He suggested in very diplomatically that besides the unification of Macedonia to Bulgaria, a Balkan federation could be a more pragmatic solution, since the alternative could be a choice between cooperation versus struggle. There were already calls for such an alternative by Karavelov, Levski, and Botev. Echoing Karavelov, Blagoev felt that only a Balkan federation could protect the Balkan "mini-states" from the imperialism of the great powers, including Russia, and could provide the collective resources needed for their economic development. (Pundeff Sep. 1971, 523-550; 534-5; Blagoev 1985, 1:46-54). Blagoev felt that the “salvation of the Macedonians and the Balkan nations was in the creation of a regional federation for common defense and development” (Pundeff, Sep. 1971, 523-550; 535).

The original idea of a Balkan Federation came from Rhigas Pheraios who started developing it in 1788, but that idea had included the whole Balkan region. Blagoev wanted to implement it with the twist of a communist state that would include only the Macedonian parts of his time. Blagoev believed that the inhabitants of Macedonia should be free to choose the language, religion, and nationality they preferred, and neither Greece nor Serbia nor Bulgaria could profit from an internecine struggle over Macedonia, especially one between the two Slavic nations. "Peoples of the Balkan peninsula," Blagoev exhorted in Marxist fashion, "unite before it is too late!" (Blagoev 1985, 1:46-54; Pundeff Sep. 1971, 523-550; 535).

Finally, in March 1903, the Communist Party separated into two groups. The one that interpreted Marxism in a liberal manner was called the "Broad Socialists" or simply the “Broads” [Широки социалисти] under the leadership of Yanko Sakuzov. The group whose interpretation of Marxism was more strictly known as the "Bulgarian Social Democratic Workers' Party (Narrow Socialists)" [Тежки социалисти] or simply the “Narrows” under the leadership of the former schoolmaster, Dimitar Blagoev (Vettes, Vol. 19, No. 4, Dec. 1960, 521-530, 521). A similar schism occurred a few months later within the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party between Julius Martov’s Mensheviks or Minority and Vladimir Lenin’s Bolsheviks or Majority. Blagoev’s personality and understanding of Marxism matched Lenin’s while the Bulgarian Narrows became the twin brother of the Russian Bolsheviks (Vettes, Vol. 19, No. 4, Dec. 1960, 521-530, 526).

In the Spring of 1918, Blagoev proposed to change the name of the party to Communist, something that took place on May 25, 1919 a few days after the establishment in Moscow of the Third Communist International Association, aka Comintern on March 2-6, 1919. More specifically, on March 4, 1919, thirty-five delegates voted, with one abstention, to constitute the Third or Communist International Association, aka Comintern. Of the thirty-six present, only the five Russian delegates (Bukharin, Chicherin, Lenin, Trotsky, and Zinoviev) had experience in both mass organization and revolutionary activism. (Hallas 2008, 10).

The name komitacı (komitadji) is the derivative of the Ottoman Turkish or Osmanlıca word komita or committee and denotes the member of a committee. They were also called sandrailists, which derives also from the Osmanlıca word santral for central. Both words apply to the way their movement was working on staging “central committees”, a feature that constituted and promoted the manner in which the communist parties worked. In Ottoman and Modern Turkish, terminations –ci (çi, cı, çı) denotes profession, and terminations li or lı denote belonging to a place or an institution (Geoffrey Lewis 2000, 11; 57: §6c).

Demographics of Krushevo

At the time of Krushevo’s prosperity, its population was about 18,000 persons. In 1870, the year of the Exarchist schism the population declined to 16,000 (Ballas 1962, 20). In 1903, Krushevo had 12,000 inhabitants, of whom 10,640 Vlach speaking Greeks, 1,000 were Slavophones, and 360 Romanian inclined Vlachs, (Ditsias 1905, 9).

In 1905, after most people left the town after the catastrophic revolt, Krushevo had 8,932 inhabitants. Of them, the 5,395 were Greeks, 2,669 Bulgarian Exarchists, 650 Rumanian inclined, 218 Serbs/Slavophones. The number of Greek households was 1193, Bulgarian Exarchist 644, Rumanian inclined 133, Serb/Slavophone 53 bringing the total to 2,023 households (Ballas 1962, 20).

Settlements to the area that later became known as the town of Krushevo started in 1769 and lasted a little longer than 1779. The settlers came to Krushevo from such areas as the present day Greek region of Macedonia and Epirus, and even the present day Albania. They came to Krushevo for some very good reasons. The first settlement came about as a result of great raid the Yörük or Yürük Turks that took place toward the end of 18th century. The second wave during the administration of the infamous Ali Pasha of Ioannina. The rest of the waves took place because of other reasons. The main populations came from Naoussa, Monastiri, Tyrnavon, Megarovon, Voskopolis, etc. (Ballas 1962, 18).

The first families came to Krushevo from Nikolitsa near Korytsa (Korce). These families found in Krushevo only one Bulgarophone family and one church made from reeds (Ballas 1962, 18). After these families from Nikolitsa came families from Linotopion, Grammosta, which is located on the Voion Mountain. The ones from Grammosta were Vlach speaking Greeks and came to Krushevo in two waves. The latter were flock herders nomads moving to warm areas during the winter and cooler areas during the summer (Ballas 1962, 19).

Another group that reached Krushevo were the Arvanites, Tosk speaking Greeks from Βυθικούκιον (present day Vithkuq, near Korce) led by their priest Fr. Eustathios and Opara led by their priest Fr. Yannakis. Their migration took place shortly after the migration of those from Nikolitsa. Because of their complete assimilation with local Greek population, a few families of the Arvanites used their language even at home by 1906 (Ballas 1962, 19; Ditsias 1905, 10; Kirov-Majski 1935, 18-19).

The town was divided into 12 neighborhoods located in a semicircle manner from northeast to Southeast as follows: Neighborhoods of Struga, Haztibusia, Salana, Yenikklise, Arnaut, Kole Naltse, Meziltzi, Kuri, Ostriltsa, Kupri, Birina, Monastiri (Ballas 1962, 22). The Bulgarians inhabited the highest hill at the western part of the town (Ditsias 1905, 10).

The Organization of Terror

The IMRO was established in Thessaloniki in 1893 as a product of successive events that gave individuals the opportunity to organize themselves against the Ottomans hoping that they could persuade Christian governments to assist them in their plight against Ottoman rule. The Committee counted on the eagerness of most of the inhabitants of Macedonia, regardless of ethnicity, faith gender, and social status, to throw off the tyranny of the Sultan. Simultaneously, the Committee hoped the events would give Christian governments the opportunity to assist the founding members of the Committee assuming that the European governments would be naïve idealists and work for them. In their effort to influence IMRO, some governments assisted the members of IMRO with cash and weapons.

Others, such as Serbia, and especially Bulgaria, infiltrated the IMRO and tried to impose its expansionist agenda. In 1902, Lt. Boris Sarafov of the Bulgarian Army and a few others joined the IMRO for that purpose. Thus, Bulgaria had hoped to encroach on the areas that the Treaty of San Stefano awarded her, but that the Council of Berlin took away. On the other hand, the IMRO revolutionaries intended to establish a Balkan state as Bakunin (Bakuninists) that Lenin had envisioned during the last years of the 1900 century. IMRO’s original organization was based on the Carbonari Society of Italy.

Misirkov described the leadership of the revolutionaries as “intellectuals … seeking and have found, another way of fighting, i.e. independent Macedonian [sic] scientific way of thinking and a Macedonian [sic] national consciousness”. However, he included himself in with those intellectuals (Misirkov 1974, 225-226). The phrase “scientific way of thinking” is a communist expression.

The Revolt in Krushevo

The final decision on which path the IMRO should take was conceived at the IMRO’s very First Socialist Conference of the Bulgarians in Macedonia, which took place in Krushevo on March 3, 1900 according to Lazar Koliševski and according to Nikola Kirov-Majski on March 3, 1901 (Lazar Kolishevski 1980, 22; Nikola Kirov-Majski, 1935, 17).

One of the outcomes of the Conference was that the participants would organize the IMRO as a larger and more visible group departing from the original Carbonari style of organization (groups of four to six members). Because of the modification, the IMRO adopted the system of local representation in district committees and municipal committees so that they could freely disseminate socialist literature and popularize socialist ideas in the towns and countryside. Such participation in the local governments resembled Lyuben Karavelov’s plan that succeeded in the incorporation of Eastern Rumelia to Bulgaria.

It must be noted that the president of the ephemeral Republic of Krushevo, Nikola Karev, was a well-known member of the Bulgarian Workers’ Social Democratic Party, i.e. Communist Party, as was Goce Delcev (Gotse Delchev) and his closest collaborators. They all assumed leading positions in the IMRO local committees. Acting as voivodes and secretaries of units, i.e. political commissars, they disseminated socialist ideas and infused socialist consciousness into the membership (Kolishevski 1980, 12; Keith Brown 2003, 190, 209; George W. Gawrych 22, 3, Jul., 1986, 307-330; 308).

Nikola Karev, president of the republic, during the fighting "held a gun in one hand and Marx's and Engels's Communist Manifesto in the other" in opposition to Bulgaria’s wish, which, in the event of the success of the uprising, wanted Macedonia to be annexed to Bulgaria (Kolishevski 1980, 12).

The leadership of the IMRO had decided to get rid of members of the Supremists or Vrhovists, the right wing of the IMRO, such as Lozanchev, Garvanov, and Sarafov, the most flexible tools of Prince Ferdinard, whom the IMRO considered imperialistic. Therefore, Panitsa, acting on Sandanski’s orders, killed them in December 1907. Sandanski, a follower of Plekhanov, was murdered in April 1915. For many years to come, the two sides assassinated each other’s members. Although in name the organization was one, in reality there were two organizations using the same name.

Communist ideas were adopted in the political platform of the IMRO, in hope that the IMRO would eventually become a revolutionary organization of the masses rallying all the revolutionary forces of people in the period prior to the St. Elias' day revolt. Goce Delcev, founder and ideologue of the movement, warned, “The liberation of Macedonia is possible only through an armed insurrection, he who thinks otherwise lies to himself and to others. Let organize the masses” (Joseph Rothschild 1959, 170n).

Based on that suggestion, the leadership decided to organize a movement of the landless tenant masses and agricultural laborers in the quest of land. The IMRO, as a government now would proceed toward the expropriation of land from feudal landowners and its distribution without compensation. Thus, they devised a plan under which guerrillas would be forcing the residents to the mountains hoping that they could create the impression of a broad movement supported by all genders, social classes, and ethnicities. In their view, this is how the peasant masses would have accepted the IMRO as their organization and become the strongest base of support for the national revolutionary movement. Because of its internationalist ideas, the socialist IMRO would strive persistently for brotherhood between the artificial majority, i.e. Bulgarians in Macedonia and the perceived minorities, sharply denouncing any sign of chauvinism or religious hatred, which were instigated by the Turkish rulers and the other Balkan imperialists.

The revolutionaries never issued a proclamation or manifesto as the government of Skopje claims. It would be humanly impossible for anyone to remember the long manifesto in its details. The proclamation or manifesto we have today is the result of a theatrical play that took place 20 years after the actual revolt. In 1923, Nikola Kirov-Majski published a theatrical play entitled Ilinden. In the second act, second scene of the play, the character of the teacher reads the manifesto to the character of Nikola Karev, the President of the Krushevo Republic. Karev, tells the teacher to translate it into Turkish and disseminate it to the Turkish villages around Krushevo (Kirov-Majski 1923). The manifesto that was promoted in the play as a declaration of independence is filled with socialist parlance of “eternal friendship” and “brotherly love”. Such language complied with the time and place of the theatrical play, which took place at the beginning of the negotiations between the left wing of the IMRO and the Comintern and the May Manifesto of the left wing of IMRO.

As the first step toward negotiations with Comintern, in Vienna on May 6, 1924 the left wing of the IMRO issued the document known as the May Manifesto. In it the IMRO chastised the imperialists and reactionaries of the Balkan Peninsula. The negotiations led to the establishment of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization –United (IMRO-U).

The so-called Manifesto of Krushevo does not have much to do with the facts on the ground since the true proclamation was a simple letter containing a series of intimidating statements to those villages which would facilitate the deployment of the Ottoman Army and support it in any way. For 10 days after the initial takeover of the town of Krushevo, which was planned and executed in a military fashion with clear political objectives, Bulgarian communists under the leadership of the Bulgarian Workers’ Social Democratic Party governed the town in a reign of terror.

The Preparation of the Operation

The revolutionaries were effectively trained and well organized not just militarily, but politically as well. It was decided that the location of the revolt would be the town of Krushevo and its surrounding villages on July 20, 1903.

The Vlach speaking Greeks of Krushevo knew that something was going to happen because the Bulgarians were moving their families out of town. In some cases, the Bulgarian komitadjis had sealed the Bulgarian section of the town in a way that the incoming Ottoman troops would perceive that the Bulgarian population did not participate in that “unjust” revolt against the Sultan.

At that point, the number of revolutionary participants were 750 fighters armed with rifles such as Russian “Kapaklı”, “Berdan”, “Martin”, Greek “Gras Mle 1874” or Grades (Γκράδες), and about 20 Mauser and Mannlicher-Schonaeur rifles. The λησταντάρται had bought the rifles type “gras” from Greece under false pretenses and Greek drovers [1] brought them to the region (Ballas 1962, 40). The fighters were divided into eight units, most of them of company strength and a couple of units of platoon strength depending on the nature of their Mission Essential Task List (METL). For this paper, I will refer to the units as detachments.

The heads of the detachments were chieftains (voivode, ὁπλαρχηγοί). According to the Operations Plan, each detachment had its own METL:​

The First Detachment under Andreya Dimov Dokurčev (nicknamed Osman Begovič had as his deputy commander Kosta Popeto) would enter the town and take over the building of the Ottoman government, the town hall, the building of the Post/Telephone/Telegraph (PTT), and the building of Tax Collection.

The Second Detachment under Ivan Naumov (nicknamed Alyabaka) would enter the city and take over the military barracks.

The Third Detachment under Dimitrios Goulis (had as his Deputy Commander Blaže Krŭstev) would protect the town from the Ostrilečski Pass and the roads from Birino and Trastenik.

The Fourth Detachment under Marko Hristov (Mirče) would protect the town from the northeastern side as encamped in the areas Lipa, Spulut and Kale.

The Fifth Detachment under Tašku Karev was to protect the pass “Koyova thorn”.

The Sixth Detachment under Riste Tasev Tsŭrniya was to protect the pass at Pavleva fountain.

The Seventh Detachment under Kosta Hristov was to protect the pass Miratova fountain at “Naked ore”.

The Eighth Detachment under Gyurčin Naumov Plyakot was to protect the road Deni-kamen between the pass Sliva and Buševa Fountain.

Once the fighters had secured the town and its surrounding areas, the Provisional Government would proceed in taxing the citizens with a temporary levy. Simultaneously, they had as their goal to requisition food for the insurgents and the population of the town and the suburbs, requisition material for clothing and sandals for insurgents and militarized citizens and as well as material for their gear. While they had planned for the care of the wounded and sick insurgents, citizens and peasants, they would carry on the maintenance of the law and order affording peace in the conquered region while concurrently they would punish any uncooperative citizens. The chief provision of the plan was that the Bulgarian sector not to be touched.

This was the "Provisional Government" of the “free city”:

President of the RepublicChairman and Chief of Justice Department Secretary and Chief of Requisition Department Treasurer and Chief of Department of Finance Mayor and Chief of PoliceChief of Head of Food and productionChief of Health Department > Nikola Balyu

​The Provisional Government relied on the help of members of the local Committee (Krushevo) Grigor D. Božinov and Todor Pavlov, the assistance of the merchant Georče Trankov and other members. (Kirov-Majski 1935, 28-35; 48-50). The same day the revolutionary court passed the death sentence on five “traitors” - one Bulgarian and four Greeks.

In the late afternoon and early evening of Sunday, St. Elijah Day of Configuration (July 20/August 2, 1903) and during the banquets that followed, eight simultaneous weddings in the Greek community of Krushevo people enjoyed themselves eating, drinking and some of them were shooting in the air. While people enjoyed the day they started to realize that the shots they heard were not the result of celebration for the weddings, but something else was has happening; the brightness and noise of explosions meant something more than just celebrating. Explosions on the roofs of houses and blazes brightened the sky as people tried to extinguish the fire. Members of the Committee of the IMRO had staged a revolt against the Ottomans.

The bells of the town's three churches rang as Turkish resistance was mopped up, and at daybreak, only 60 Turkish troops still offered resistance, surrounded in the barracks. Government institutions were taken over and the people of the Bulgarian side of the town were in a mood of exultation. But not in the Greek nor the Ottoman areas where people were taken out of their houses and executed in cold blood, women raped and properties looted and burned.

​The wrath of the komitadjis was directed toward Greeks and Turks regardless of gender or age. It seems that a few of the komitadjis were Greeks, as well. Ditsias presents the conversation that he had with Dimitri Guli in Greek to whom among other things, he said:​

Mr. Guli, although you have been aberrant and have been waif of the will of the Bulgarian faction, which threatens your fatherland, I cannot call you Bulgarian because you are Orthodox and Greek to your bone marrow. Turn your eyes, Mr. Guli, and look at the abyss that rests before the feet of the Greek community (Ditsias 1905, 45).

On July 22, 1903, the commander a socialist and schoolteacher Nikola Karev led his staffers from the neighboring hills into the town and held a meeting with about 60 notable members of the town representing the three ethnic groups. They elected a commission of six members, two from each ethnic group – Bulgarians, Greeks and Romanian inclined Vlachs- who in turn formed the new administration of the town. The Serbs were not represented, not because of their numbers, but because the Bulgarians could not consider the other Slavophones as foreigners (Ballas 1962, 42).

In the meantime, on the July 23, an Ottoman regular unit along with a band of başıbozuk unsuccessfully attempted to recapture Krushevo.

According to Kirov-Majski, on July 24, 1903, Taško P. Hristov, a Bulgarian parliamentarian, took the original document to the Turkish village of Adalçı and handed it to a child with the directive to give it to Sinan, the mayor of the town. Hristov waited three full hours for the answer. The letter was in fact an ultimatum and not a proclamation of any type.

As soon as Sinan read the letter, he called the local hodja who did what he was told to do. From the minaret of the mosque, the hodja called together the entire male population of the village, which had 40 households, and made the terms of the ultimatum known to them. (Kirov- Majski 1935, 56). From there, Sinan sent the ultimatum to the Turkish villages of Lažani (180 households) and Debrište (250 households) which returned their response to Sinan. [2] Sinan fully cooperated with Karev’s instructions.

The letter-ultimatum served a dual purpose: first, to make clear the purpose of the revolt, and second, to serve as a warning to the Turkish population that any collaboration with the Ottoman Army would be punishable by death. (Kirov-Majski 1935, 56 – 57). Under the threatening conditions set by the Bulgarian brigands, all three villages agreed not to assist the Ottoman troops if and when they would arrive (Kirov-Majski 1935, 57). Concerning the events of the revolt, the Bulgarian komitadjis killed innocent Vlach speaking Greeks, burned and pillaged only houses belonging to Vlach Greeks and in general destroyed only Vlach Greek properties (Naltsas 1958, 18-22).

The revolutionary Bulgarian Komitadjis, besides raping, killing, and maiming people, destroyed and burned a lot of households, shops, and government buildings. The Bulgarian Komitadjis had any Ottoman employee, soldier, and policeman captured and executed. The Ottoman army that followed the Bulgarian revolutionaries finished whatever the Bulgarians did not have time to do.

The toll of destruction inflicted by the Bulgarian revolutionaries and the incoming Ottoman Army was 366 houses and 203 shops, all belonging to Vlach speaking Greeks. (Kirov- Majski 1935, passim). In total, 46 innocent Greek- civilians were murdered with many more missing. Some were murdered outside the town as they tried to escape and others less fortunate were buried alive by their captors. The names of the victims are enumerated in the Greek Consul’s dispatch. Kirov-Majski collaborates the names of the victims (Kirov-Majski 1935, 87- 88). Those victims who were killed because of financial depletion had their money first stolen by the bandits and then killed or the money they could give to the bandits was not enough to save their lives.

Hilmi Pasha, the governor of the Rumeli Elayet (governorate) dispatched Bahtıyar Pasha with an army of nine Infantry Battalions, three Cavalry Companies, 18 artillery pieces (four mountain and 14 field artillery guns) under the command of Bakhtiar Pasha in order to crush the revolt of the Bulgarians.

The indiscriminate bombardment started immediately with dire consequences for the Greek population. In fact, they looted and burned the households of Greeks that the Bulgarians did not have a chance to burn and killed innocent civilians, [3] Over and above the regular forces, the başıbozuk, [4] an irregular force, the Grey Wolves of the time, came to Krushevo in order to aid the ungodly work of the Bulgarians and the Ottoman Army. (Naltsas 1958, 55; Greek Consul Dispatch 1903/ No 604).

When Bahtıyar Pasha reckoned that the threat was in fact a few imported bandits and not the Greek inhabitants of the village he sent troops who trapped the revolutionary socialists on to the point of Mechkin Kamen, a few kilomenters from Krushevo. Three days later the battle was over. Bahtıyar Pasha took no prisoners. He did dishonor, humiliate and execute citizens who in his opinion were collaborators of the bandits.

​The Vlach speaking Greeks of Krushevo had constituted a thriving community whose culture was of essence in the whole region. During a symposium on Krushevo that took place in Ohrid on May 27, 28 and 29, 1968, on the 65-year anniversary of the Ilinden Revolt, Mihailo Apostoloski published a book entitled “Ilinden 1903”. Apostoloski offers a folklore song commemorating Krushevo’s battle. ​

“In that summer of 1903, a total of 22 villages were completely destroyed and many more suffered serious damage, leaving 40,000 people homeless. The bulk of the damage was to the Greek and Vlach-speaking Greek communities in the areas around Florina, Monastir and Kastoria” (Gounaris, n.d.).

Conclusion

Despite the fact that the vast majority of the victims (and their properties) were Vlach speaking Greeks (Ballas 1962, 37-66; Naltsas 1958, 18-22; Greek Consul Dispatch 1903/ No 604), the FYROM historiography has re-baptized the victims as Rumanian Vlachs, Albanians, and “Macedonians” (Brown 2003, 17, 79, 81-82, 96, 225). Somehow, these historiographers identify the victims with the Bulgarian villains as being the victims of the Ottoman Army. That is not true. By all accounts outside the FYROM Slavs, the victims were Vlach speaking Greeks and the villains were both Bulgarian communists and Ottoman Turks.

Looking at the names of the honorees in the “Makedonium” of the FYROM, one cannot but conclude that the government of the FYROM honors the Bulgarian communist bandits, thugs, and criminal elements ignoring the true victims, the Greek civilians who paid with their lives, limb and properties. Even if some of the citizens of Krushevo were victims of the Ottoman Army, the real perpetrators of the crimes were the Bulgarians whose actions invited the wrath of Hilmi Pasha at the expense of the Vlach speaking Greek population. [5]

That the “Macedonians” as an ethnic group did not exist until January 11, 1934 is not a matter of propaganda by the Serbs, Bulgarians or Greeks as Skopje claims. The Great Powers were very cognizant of the fact and it is why Rostkovski, the Russian Consul in Monastiri (Bitola) often said, "The Bulgarians think they are the only people in the world with brains, and that all others are fools. Whom do they hope to deceive with their articles in Pravo and other papers saying that the Macedonians want Macedonia for the Macedonians? We know very well what they want!” (Krste P. Misirkov 1974, 44).

Ahmet Emin Yalman was born in Thessaloniki in 1888. He was one of the most prominent figures within Kemal Ataturk’s party (CUP) throughout his life. He had graduated from the German School; he graduated from the Faculty of Law in Istanbul, and received his doctorate degree at Columbia University of New York in journalism and philosophy. He was the publisher and editor of the Istanbul paper Vatan. He wrote a political autobiography, titled Turkey in my Time covering the Atatürk era and later. Yet this man covering his early life in Macedonia, brings in pages 9 and 11, as inhabitants of Macedonia the Turks, Greeks, Bulgarians, Jews, Serbs, Vlach speaking Greeks, and Albanians (Yalman 1956, 9, 11). He also lists the komitadjis as Bulgarian terrorists (Yalman 1956, 15). Of course, that was long before Stalin cloned the Bulgarians as Macedonians.

The revolt failed because it lacked popular support despite Skopje’s assertions to the contrary. The failure of the revolt meant the decline of the original IMRO especially after the death of Goce Delcev who was killed on May 4, 1903 before the rebellion, and Damian Gruev who was killed on December 23, 1906.

During the ten days of the Krusgevo republic, the revolutionaries attempted to destory the cultural identity of Krushevo and then kill all those whom they consider responsible for that current culture, the Greeks.

It is only fair that Greece erects a monument commemorating the innocent victims of the Bulgarian Web and the Ottoman Harpoon.

[1] An American English synonym for muleteer, "mule skinner", a driver of mules.

[2] The location of the three villages is as follows: Adalçı is located west of Krushevo about four kilometers as the crow flies, Lazhani about 12 kms northeast of Krushevo as the crow flies, and Debrishte is located about 6 kms north of Lazhani as the crow flies.

[3] The names of the victims, their destroyed properties, their allegiance and other details are recorded in the report of the Greek Consul in Monastiri (Bitola).

[4] The Ottoman terminology of its various army services is as follows: Nizamiye = Regular Army and nizami = a soldier of the regular army. Redif was a reservist, mostly Albanians. Bashibozuk was a civilian performing the job of a soldier; it was essentially an irregular soldier. They were similar to the Greek Ταγμάτων Εθνοφυλακής Αμύνης (T.E.A.). İlavı was a second- class reservist, unruly tending to have criminal behavior.

[5] Hilmi Pasha (Hüseyin Hilmi Paşa) was descendant of an Islamized Greek family from Thermi (Sarlıca) Lesbos. He studied at the school of the Great Mosque of Lesbos and besides speaking excellent Greek, he also spoke flawless French for which he took private lessons. He worked in the Ottoman bureaucracy as secretary, because of his education, rising slowly through the ranks of the Ottoman bureaucracy. On December 2, 1902, he took over the newly formed Office of Inspector General of the newly established Rumeli governorate that included the vilayets of Selânik (Thessaloniki), Manastir (Bitola) and Kosova (Kosovo and Metohiya). He stayed at that position six years with the task to prevent the activities of the Bulgarian bands in Macedonia and establish good governance. His job was the implementation of the reforms that the Great Powers had envisaged for the region and accepted at “gun-point” so to speak by the Sultan (Source: İSAM – Türkiye Dıyanet Vakfı, Islâm Araştımaları Merkezi.

About Marcus A. TemplarProfessor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Certified U.S. Army Instructor of Intelligence Courses, Certified Foreign Disclosures Officer, Certified Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian, SIGINT / All-Source Intelligence Analyst. He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

About the Macedonian LeagueWe are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity.

The Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Macedonian name dispute”, as this dispute is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

In defending his and his compatriots’ “Macedonian” ancestry, it seems that Dr. Todor Čepreganov, Ph.D., and Director of the National History Institute at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje has been quoted as saying, “Eugene Borza (Prof Emeritus Penn State University) published many books on Alexander the Great and Antic [ancient] Macedonia, has asked, ‘Why would the Macedonians invade, kill and enslave their own people?’”[i]

Since Dr. Čepreganov did not understand that it was only a rhetorical question, I offer Eugene Borza’s response to his own question: “ancient history is replete with examples of bona fide Greeks who fought constantly against one another.”[ii] I would love to send a copy of Borza’s paper to the good professor, although one can read Borza’s statement on the first page of JSTOR (second paragraph, fifth line) without a subscription.[iii]

Not a single historian outside the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and its diaspora that would give a different answer. Non-FYROM Slav historians respect themselves and their degrees. As for the FYROM “historians” and their diaspora, I would suggest that they take a good look and study very carefully the WHOLE book The Peloponnesian War authored by Thucydides, the first and foremost scientific historian ever, and the reasons behind the authorship of this book. The title could give them a hint! It would be useful, as well, for the same “historians” to read about the Melian Dialogue in the same book (Thucydides V, 84-116) and the result of that debate. I do not want to confuse these “historians” with offering information on other battles like the Battle of Helos that took place in circa 1213 BC, 20 years before the Trojan War (1193-1183 BC). Nevertheless, the Battle of Leuktra (371 BC), the two Battles of Mantineia (418 BC and 362 BC) could give them a clue.

Regarding the part “Why … enslave their own people?” I am referring the good professor to Pausanias who confirms:

I also know of the following rite which is performed here. By the sea was a city Helos, which Homer too has mentioned in his list of the Lacedaemonians: These had their home in Amyclae and in Helos the town by the seaside.” It was founded by Helius, the youngest of the sons of Perseus, and the Dorians afterward reduced it by siege. Its inhabitants became the first slaves of the Lacedaemonian state, and were the first to be called Helots, as in fact Helots they were. The slaves afterward acquired, although they were Dorians of Messenia, also came to be called Helots, just as the whole Greek race were called Hellenes from the region in Thessaly once called Hellas.[iv]

I must note that the Macedonians never “enslaved” anyone the way the Spartans did, but it seems Dr. Čepreganov had cut class the day his professor was teaching that chapter. Perhaps, the professor would like me to mention the Helot revolt which took place just after an earthquake in the hope that the devastation of Sparta would help them escape the horrendous slavery. The rebellion took place between 465 -462 BC where many Greek tribal states were fighting on one side or another.[v]Nevertheless, how is it possible for someone who claims to be a professor and historian with a degree in History to read the book The Peloponnesian War and quote everything on ancient Macedonia and Macedonians, but misses the reasons why the author wrote the book? Who exactly was fighting against whom, professor? However, here is the end of the Peloponnesian War according to Xenophon (Xenophon, Hellenika Book II, chapter II, sections 19-20).​

[19] “Now when Theramenes and the other ambassadors were at Sellasia and, on being asked with what proposals they had come, replied that they had full power to treat for peace, the ephors thereupon gave orders to summon them to Lacedaemon. When they arrived, the ephors called an assembly, at which the Corinthians and Thebans in particular, though many other Greeks agreed with them, opposed making a treaty with the Athenians and favored destroying their city.

[20] The Lacedaemonians, however, said that they would not enslave a Greek city which had done great service amid the greatest perils that had befallen Greece [i.e., the Persian wars] and they offered to make peace on these conditions: that the Athenians should destroy the long walls and the walls of Piraeus, surrender all their ships except twelve, allow their exiles to return, count the same people friends and enemies as the Lacedaemonians did, and follow the Lacedaemonians both by land and by sea wherever they should lead the way.

Therefore, although the Spartans were magnanimous, the others were not. Is the professor saying that the Corinthians, Thebans and all those cities who agreed with them in destroying Athens to the ground, were non-Greeks?

Nevertheless, the whole matter is as if one reads Lev Tolstoy’s book War and Peace quoting various parts and not knowing that the war and peace that Tolstoy wrote about was between France and Russia! Excellent reading comprehension, professor!Even Badian (1982), an opponent of Macedonia's Hellenism, concluded that name- calling [by Demosthenes and others] might have been no more than invective by angry orators unrelated to historical facts.Borza wrote concerning Demosthenes, "Only recently have we begun to clarify these muddy waters by realizing the Demosthenes corpus for what it is: oratory designed to sway public opinion in Athens and thereby to formulate public policy. The elusive creature, Truth, is everywhere subordinate to its expressive servant, Rhetoric" (Borza1990, 5). Demosthenes was using a political attack on his enemy and was not referring to the Macedonian speech.In response to Demosthenes’ political accusations, Aeschines reminded the Pnyx, i.e. the Parliament of Athens, that Philip’s father, Amyntas, was invited as a Greek to sit at the Peace Conference of Greek States of 371 BC which took place in Sparta because as a Greek “he was entitled to a seat.” Amyntas participated through an ambassador and voted in favor of Athens. The relevant text is as follows:For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was entirely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this, I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted (Aeschines, On the Embassy, 32).If the good professor wants to offer a real service to himself and his compatriots, he should start working on their Slavic history, language, and heritage. Of course, if he still feels “Macedonian” he could author a scientific paper filled with scientific arguments using primary sources of the time on the imaginary amalgamation of the Slavic population of geographic Macedonia with the Greek speaking Macedonians, as Fanula Papazoglu determined on page 333 of her dissertation “Macedonian Cities during Roman Times.” Dr. Mikhail D. Petruševski was the editor of her dissertation that was written in Serbian, and the University of Skopje approved it in 1957. Perhaps professor Čepreganov would like to offer a catalog of about 1,500 ancient Macedonian monuments and inscriptions, of course, all Greek, hidden in the basements of museums in Skopje! The inscription of Oleveni would do it for starters.[vi]However, the professor was also quoted as saying:

Ernst Badian (Harvard University – History Department) explains the last battle between Macedonians and Greeks: ‘After hearing and rejoicing on the news of Alexander’s death, Greek soldiers and mercenaries saw their chance to remove themselves from Macedonian despot rule and rebelled. However, a Macedonian army under Pithon did defeat the rebels. Pithon, no doubt recognizing their immense value for the empire as a whole, persuaded them to go back to their posts, assuring them personal safety in return. Yet, contrary to his oath, seventeen thousand Greeks were cut down, after surrendering their arms, by the enraged Macedonians, and Pithon could not stop them. The patent needs of the empire and the oath of their commander were swallowed up in the explosion of what we can only regard as the men’s irrational hatred for their Greek enemies.’

Since the good professor has no scientific argument on his own, I would like to respond to Dr. Badian’s argument, but why do I have the feeling that the good professor of Skopje was not interested in Badian’s whole statement. I do not doubt that Badian has read Polybius V, 108, 3, 7, 8 where he says that a few Macedonian cities had revolted against Philip, who eventually re- captured them. Here is the text,​

3. He, therefore, set forth at once with his army to recover as soon as possible the revolted cities, … 7 as he was convinced that this was the only way by which he could recover his principality of Pharos. 8. Philip, then, advancing with his army recovered the cities I mentioned, took Creonium and Gerus in the Dassaretis, Enchelanae, Cerax, Sation, and Boei in the region of Lake Lychnis, Bantia in the district of the Caloecini and Orgyssus in that of the Pisantini. 9. After these operations, he dismissed his troops to winter quarters. This was the winter in which Hannibal after devastating the wealthiest part of Italy was going into winter quarters at Gerunium in Daunia, 10. and the Romans had just elected Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paulus to the consulate.[vii].

As the professor can see, not only “Greek” cities, as he put it, revolted against the Macedonian kings, but also Macedonian cities against their own king.For the sake of the reputation of Skopje’s Academy of Sciences and Arts and all its members, one only hopes that Dr. Todor Čepreganov is neither a member nor a representative of the academic view of his country. If he were a member and a representative of the academic aspect of his country, the education in the Republic of Skopje has reached rock bottom in scientific thought and arguments equal to the level of the sixth graders those books were intended for. Indeed, the capital of a country can name the whole country, i.e., Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Rome, Byzantium to name a few.) I am leaving the Republic of Kruševo out of it in which Bulgarian socialist revolutionaries of Karev killed Greeks and Turks and then blamed the Greeks for their “revolt”.[viii] If in the end, the professor’s scientific findings convince historians of his part Slavic and part Greek Macedonian ancestry, then we might have something to talk about. Until then, I have news for the professor: he is a Slav!!!There is reciprocity in all fair and balanced scientific arguments. The FYROM Slavs cannot demand from the Greeks to prove scientifically that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks and simultaneously demand from the world to take their word that they are “the Macedonians” through an amalgamation that never existed. Why should anyone take the word of the Slavs for their unproven “Macedonian” ancestry, but not the word of the ancient Macedonian kings that they were Greeks?Whether the ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not is an unprofitable historical question. The Athenians were Pelasgians according to Herodotus, but the dear professor has not spent a minute trying to argue scientifically whether the ancient Athenians were Greeks or not. Since however, he insists that he is “Macedonian” and connects himself to the ancient Macedonian culture, I would recommend that instead of concentrating in de-Hellenizing the ancient Macedonians, the professor should try to connect his Slavic ancestry to the Greek Macedonians; scientifically, of course!I wish the professor Good Luck in his efforts; he definitely needs it!_____

[v] Thucydudes 1.101.2; Plutarch, Cimon 16.3 and 16. 4-17.2; Pausanias 1.29.8.[vi] Fanula Papazoglu, Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times (Amsterdam, Hakkert, 1978), 56. The plaque found at the town of Oleveni near Bitola is written in Greek.

About the Macedonian LeagueWe are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity.

The Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Macedonian name dispute”, as this dispute is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.